Rippin' rock vs. Aerosmith schlock in Massachusetts

Alright. I’m throwin’ down my cane and shaking my fist. Listen up, whippersnappers: This question of whether The Modern Lovers’ “Roadrunner” should be the official Massachusetts rock song as opposed to Aerosmith’s “Dream On” is no question at all — of course it should!

Competing bills for the honor came before a Legislative committee last week with “Dream On” sponsor Rep. James Cantwell touting it as emblematic of Aerosmith’s inspirational “rags-to-riches” rise. Meanwhile, the bill sponsored by Boston mayor-elect, state Rep. Marty Walsh (endorsed by the Dropkick Murphys in his recent election, yo) lets Johathan Richman’s head-banger speak for itself. He is not only of Massachusetts, but so is the song itself.

It’s strength is not only its mention of cruising the power lines out by Route 128 or to the Stop n’ Shop, it’s the notion of bustin’ loose that is the very foundation of rock music. It’s reckless abandon, speed, spittle and every other secretion you can think of. It’s blistering guitars and maybe wrecking your car. Rags to riches? For chrissake, just gimme some gas money!

Look, I’m not even native to this state, okay? But I’m tellin’ ya’, if you want to hold your head up anywhere you go, “Roadrunner” is an excellent piece of work. I was living in Maine, reviewing rock records and griping about Massholes like everyone else when “Roadrunner” shredded the region’s airwaves. You don’t have to know those locations — you just get it because you’re alive.

Adopt “Roadrunner” and you’ve got yourself something on the national playing field. You can stare down someone from away and say, “Check it out, man.”  It’s not like trying to boost football creds when all you can offer is Boston College and a millionaire’s smart investment in Foxboro. Here, you can boast real roots on the national landscape. 

Oklahoma adopted "Do You Realize" from 2002 by the Flaming Lips after popular balloting drew 21,000 voters in 2009 (amazingly with nothing by Leon Russell among a choice of 10).

Lake Superior agate is Minnesota’s official gem, but my vote would be for 1963’s “Surfin’ Bird” by the Trashmen, immortalized in the Minnesota State Museum’s “Garage Bands of Minnesota” exhibit (in the same room housing a display on the a state Catholic parish’s Polka Mass).

Lawmakers in my native Ohio picked “Hang on Sloopy,” popularized in 1965 by the one-hit McCoys. I would have favored “Little Bit O’ Soul,” a 1967 classic by the one-hit Music Explosion, or almost anything by Devo.

But you see, it’s popping hormones and unbridled brain cells, that’s what rock has always been about. And throw in some revolution. Since when was it about doing what your parents told you?

Who the hell looks back on how great it was to fantasize about “rags-to-riches” success? Even pot-bellies who once juiced it to Aerosmith are more likely to inflate their “Big Ten Inch” glories in their own, uuh, minds. Who got sloppy or silly over “Dream On”? Who felt they were ready to charge out there and take on the world after that? Dream on!

Most people would agree there is legislative precedent in Massachusetts for making bad decisions, so “Dream On” is a distinct and embarrassing possibility. It is a rock song of sorts. It does have a discernible drumkit.

But if some hair-band drivel is going to beat out an entry as bold and emblematic as “Roadrunner,” they might also vote to designate the state “The Cradle of the Counter-revolution” and lead Boston tourists on a walk through the Slave to Fashion Trail. Because there won’t be any celebration of freedom in this state’s rock song.

So Knowledgeable

So more and more conversations start just this way.

 "So" used to be mainly a conjunction, a way to join sequential thoughts. "I saw the opening, so I took it."

Occasionally, sure, you'd hear someone like Moe Howard lead a sentence where something seemed obvious. "So ... a wiseguy, ey?"

Then somewhere along the generational fault line the usage went upscale. For the past few years now, "so" is less often an obvious conclusion or the joining of two thoughts. Rather, it's the abrupt launchpad for a really thoughtful-sounding thought. It makes the rest of us feel deficient: We better get our brains in gear and catch up with this breathless speaker and rapid thinker. But in fact the situation is just the opposite. It's the speaker who needs to gather some steam.

 "So the situation in Syria has deteriorated to the point where the Obama administration believes it has to be more directly involved," an NPR correspondent would say to lead off an interview with the news anchor. The question posed would not beg the "so" response at all, but this trendy vernacular does. What does this new "so" signify? What's going on in the skull of the speaker in the instant before it's uttered? Where did this come from?

 "Ach, so..." is a common German exclamation. But our new English usage didn't evolve from that idiom, which translates to "Oh, I see!" — a complete thought. The hanging conjunction so favored on our shores introduces an explanation, rather than in reaction to one. So what is unstated before this conjunction is blurted and carries us away? (Notice the more traditional use here.)

 I have listened to this annoying condescension, especially on NPR and public television, enough to develop a theory. It may seem the implied initial clause is: "I know a bunch of things you don't and 'So ...' "

 But it really amounts to an old standby for people taking a moment to gather a thought, as in: "Ummm..."
 Common synonyms are "Uh ..." or the less flattering, "Duh."

 Anyone wanting to take me on for beginning a paragraph with "but" should realize that at least it connects to a preceding thought.

 In a recently educated demographic, however, the outburst is in vogue and self-esteem runs high, and we get "So ..." connecting to nothing at all. Where more time is needed, a conversation starter such as, "OK, so ..." is the approximate equivalent of "Ummm, uhhh..."

 I'd like to see a new generation evolve as more playful and self-deprecating. Maybe a big comeback is in order for Porky Pig's enunciated "Ibbity-bibbity-bibbity ..." followed by the clincher, "That's all folks!"

 But for now, "So ..." is the accepted currency to buy nanoseconds. The fact that those who use it most often go on to sound so sure of themselves really is a marvel, considering how dependent on this device they have become.

 So I guess I have nothing more to say on the subject.

 Cue the "Looney Tunes" theme.

Harvesting a Publicity Garden

Publicity ought to be part of your marketing strategy to boost your mission or profits and keep you in the game over the long term. It's neither free or easy and — sorry, Jack — it's not like planting magic beans.

“PR” is what people used to describe the spin they tried to obtain through “news media.” The primary tool was the “press release” or “press packet.” Results were sort of measurable: You would see how many clippings carried your name and boosted your ego, and see whether it made the phone ring or the door swing open.

All this has not withered, but it’s evolved. And even deeply rooted organizations can evolve with it. Now, a comfortable publicity routine includes more diverse efforts that require a lot more spadework for what may seem to be less immediate impact.

It’s planting hardy seeds online as well as in traditional media, knowing that the field is crowded, and that in many businesses the seeds of competitors have blown in from all over the world via sales over the Internet.

The traditional media is soil depleted of many vital nutrients, but still supporting life. Online, the message doesn’t go into anyone’s compost bin so quickly and you have control over how it looks. It stays indefinitely not only where it’s planted, but on a surprising number of sites that harvest material from your site and others.

Posting your PR online will bring more eyeballs over time, but it won’t be that same “bounce” you could get with a nicely placed piece of publicity in the daily news or even through a Facebook posting that slides farther and farther down the page.

For long-term impact and for your particular species to thrive, it's best to know where to sow, and save seeds for all the fertile spots that best serve your goals.

Verizon, Google meet on Shakedown Street

Since when is a partnership a one-way street? Since the coining of the term “government-business partnership,” that’s when.

The government can innovate (nuclear power, the Internet) and hand it over to the private sector to make all the dimes off our public investment. OK, so companies improve on it. Shouldn’t some of the benefits of those improvements flow back to the public like royalties?

A fine example is the emerging discussion about an open Internet brought to light by this week’s agreement between Verizon and Google. It allows for preferential flow of data through mobile networks, so that those big enough to afford it can buy priority. In this case Google services would bump aside competitors when delivered via the Internet to mobile phones.

Somehow they have spun it to emphasize that the “public Internet” would remain neutral. Well how about untwisting the definitions and saying the Internet is public. Then everyone would have the right to equal access and speed. And it’s the same internet whether someone is sitting in their home or standing on a streetcorner.

Mobile telephones and their benefits should be doubly public in nature, not less public. Telephone services are, or have generally been, “public utilities,” with the government at least regulating them to a degree, supposedly in public interest. And the towers Verizon uses to transmit its mobile signals exist by the good graces of the public, through local approval processes. We let them puncture our neighborhoods and horizons with their towers just like they require our permission to stick their poles along our highways and drape their wires. We don’t need to take the clout — we’ve got it.

Yet Verizon, with the framework announced this week in the absence of government regs, would not limit itself to Google. This is its template for the future — they even have the audacity to call it a pattern for how the government should (not) regulate such deals. The mobile giant would love to sign more, similar deals with anyone who could pay them to get onto mobile phones faster. The more, the merrier.

Soon it becomes a shakedown, a good, old-fashioned Mafia protection racket. Pay the man to walk safely down the street.

It’s like running a commuter railroad and instead of saying people pay more to ride first class, people who don’t pay more go to the same destination pulled by an 1890s steam locomotive. We’re talking separate trains, here.

Sorry, but I ain’t riding in the cattle car, so to speak, and neither should you. I want my media business to come up just as fast as AOL either in your home or standing on a streetcorner. And the same goes for my lawnmower repair guy vs. Sears. Or my favorite news sources vs. Big Media.

There are plenty of rewards being paid from the innovations of Google, Verizon and the like. But the Internet is infrastructure, a common carrier, and should remain so. Infrastructure is public. It is now up to the Federal Communications Commission to show us who it works for on this issue and use its authority to keep the Internet at an even flow.

When the cookies munch you

It started out innocently enough. Or did it?

“Cookies” that initially tracked how you navigate a website were merely research tools, right? Ways web developers could find out how their clients sites were attracting customers or visitors to various pages. Ways most popular offerings could be tracked. That’s what the website privacy policies told us.

But it took only the thinnest reed of cynicism to know that more was in store. And now that we are being shadowed at virtually every keystroke on the Internet for the purposes of targeting advertising, or by those with even worse intentions for us or the health of our computers, once-imaginary creatures from the nightmare lagoons of privacy invasion are beginning to breathe a lot closer to our necks.

Soon after I recently popped up a page for the Lowell Folk Festival, I found a Google ad on my G-mail for a folk act’s concert tour, someone I hadn’t thought about in a long while but whose appearance tempted me for a moment. Some internet marketer was doing their job well, and it was for music, whose cause is just. But the trust we place in Google by utilizing their free services is immense.

The phrase “falling into the wrong hands” comes to mind. And there are plenty of wrong hands out there. Google may be run by Boy Scouts right now but the jingling of doubloons is an inevitably corrupting influence. When nukes fall into the “wrong hands” (as if there are right ones) we worry a lot. When privacy falls into the wrong hands — well, we’re way past 1984 already.

But worthy organizations and businesses have the potential to utilize internet advertising and all its potentially invasive technologies. We don’t ask Google how its high priests work their magic, and Google would not tell us if we did. Advertisers just want to know whether it works, which Google does purport to tell us when we use AdWords.

But now that the cookies are munching us, we are on some level contributing the ruination of the Internet when we purchase such an ad. How much time do people spend either cleaning up their computers from invasive technology or blocking it? I surely don’t spend the time reading every privacy policy I must click to approve, do you?

To varying degrees, advertising has always been an invasion of consciousness. “Chew Mail Pouch Tobacco” on the side of a barn took the bliss out of the countryside 80 years ago, but today we’ll tolerate quite a bit more noise than that. The problem is that the technology is starting to stalk us into every corner.

That leaves the possibility that the voice behind it — yours, perhaps — becomes the enemy, and your innocent enough approaches will become unwelcome. It happened with TV, and the clicker became the antidote.

Congress is considering some curbs that, however enforceable, would seek to protect the innocence that remains. For those of us who are not advertising jackals, let’s enjoy that innocence while it lasts.

On the ground, it's tilling season

It’s been nine years now since “on the ground” burst over the cliché horizon with blinding effect. In that time people have swallowed the white noise and the impression it gives: That the person who writes or says it is in the know, or has spoken directly to someone who is (and supposedly is presenting an unbiased perspective).

It has the same intellectual force once ascribed to the concluding phrase, “Think about it.” (Most effectively conveyed by removal of eyeglasses as it’s about to be uttered.)

Both are hogwash for different reasons, but “on the ground” is a province of the news media and its handlers, most often connected with the uniformed services. It also speaks volumes about how they work these days, together and separately. Oh, the phrase got a workout during Hurricane Katrina at a point when Bourbon Street was beyond reach. But “on the ground” really gained the veneer of legitimacy in the aftermath of 9-11 when the U.S. responded with invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

It’s a given that the phrase can be removed from almost any news report (other than football game coverage) with no loss of substance. The situation on the ground in Kandahar is the same as the situation in Kandahar, especially if the teller actually knows what that situation is. But that’s the key.

News media are supposed to know or tell you why they don’t, in the pursuit of truth on your behalf. But with news bureaus closing worldwide and domestic staff slashed to ribbons by corporate ownership, journalists were more at the mercy of news handlers (PR staffs) than ever before in 2001, and have become more so.

Much of the “on the ground” reporting in these wars came from embedded reporters who were necessarily compromised by covering the event from one side. Yeah, yeah, a truer picture could emerge if you read their stuff and the non-embeds’ reporting, but when you put a reporter in boots you’ve got “boots on the ground,” and when you hype your coverage you make the most of that.

More often “on the ground” refers to places reporters do not have access to — Palestinian refugee camps, battle scenes where embeds are for some reason not invited, places where no one speaks English or likes Westerners, or it’s just too dangerous for them. So it becomes a reference for second-hand information coming from someone with an agenda, someone who speaks clear English and has a friendly, thriving PR operation. If the U.S. military knew the situation “on the ground” in Northern Pakistan, Osama bin Laden could only wish he was cranking out license plates in Joliet, Ill.

Now let’s say you hear “on the ground” from someone who was actually there. What exactly are they conveying? Why, that they’re not getting a handout, that they’re doing their job. That’s a grand thing, and everybody likes to be stroked. But self-stroking in public is, well, just a little embarrassing, isn’t it?



Think about it.

Life by 1,000 slices: Navigating media convergence

If you were too busy letting newspapers die to pick up the New York Times last Friday, or you didn’t see it online, you aren’t alone. But behind the scenes, it underscores the need for the Davids with a message to work their way through — and around — the Goliaths.

You certainly couldn’t depend on broadcasters to inform you about a federal action that will subvert them, too, as media convergence morphs around the Internet and leaves the makers and users of the old hardware in an “adapt-or-die” frame of mind. Why should TV news cover the Federal Communications Commission’s intention to treat their owners as second-class while expanding the availability of bandwidth to the Internet?

The Times article in question, lays this out for us: The internet is taking over, so why not let it? By 75-year-old law, the FCC stands as guardian of the “airwaves” that are supposedly the property of the public, even though recent administrations have done their best to give our property away to the large corporations who control both the means and the messages.

Of course, it’s not only “airwaves” we talk about today. Communications is on an energy spectrum that may travel by air, but it now arrives by pipe in the form of broadband and cable television, as well as from your dish or – if you are hearty – a rooftop antenna. The spectrum of frequencies is increasingly crowded by all the outlets for television, specialized radio communications and internet bandwidth.

“According to F.C.C. officials briefed on the plan, ,” the Times reports, “the commission’s recommendations will include a subsidy for Internet providers to wire rural parts of the country now without access, a controversial auction of some broadcast spectrum to free up space for wireless devices, and the development of a new universal set-top box that connects to the Internet and cable service.”

The article goes on to discuss direct Internet delivery of health records and classroom educational materials that could bypass current handlers, including companies heavily invested in more traditional technology. More and more of the broadcast spectrum would be allocated to other means of communication, including mobile applications.

Couple this with the notion that entire cities are wiring (with help from Google grants, among other sources) to ensure universal coverage for rich and poor, urban and rural, and you have the government accelerating the reality of convergence around the Internet for message delivery for everyone.

Already local-access cable stations are embracing the use of the Web to provide on-demand content for even the likes of “Wayne’s World” and more serious hyperlocal programming.

What do these moves signal for smaller voices trying to communicate?

Quite probably, the death of advertising as we know it. Ditto for public relations, which has already become a guerilla war as outlets publish less and use bland or cost-based formulas to determine what airs or prints. From TV clickers to general media overload, it is more vital than ever to mobilize direct, trustworthy contact via word of mouth and familiar sources.

I refer to it as guerrilla war because it is, as Malcolm X said, “by any means necessary.” It varies from infiltrating the garden club newsletter to a viral campaign on Twitter, depending on the demographic you are seeking – and sometimes it is both.

So as the media “converge” around the internet, your chosen means of getting your messages out may actually have to splinter, taking many smaller paths.

Flexibility is the key, measurability of results remains the challenge. Effectiveness is always the goal, and perseverance the only way to get there.

Talking people to death

My metro daily, the Worcester, MA Telegram & Gazette is editorially aghast.

Its Feb. 4 suggestion is that political maneuvering was afoot as Scott Brown wasn't sworn into the U.S. Senate within 10 days of his election due to Democrats on Boston’s Beacon Hill.

"Something tells us," the newspaper states,"that if Mr. Brown had represented the critical 60th vote in favor of the majority party’s health care reform agenda, he would already be sitting in the Senate."

While the T&G's "something" is not attributed, its motives are clear. What's the hurry? To get Brown down to assure that a Senate filibuster could block what's left of the health care legislation. LeibermanCare long ago ceased being reform.

But this exemplifies why it is laughable when the T&G sets itself up as a principled voice. A 41-59 vote is not majority rule. In fact, it's so undemocratic that I turn to no less than The Telegram & Gazette editorial page to describe those who utilize this stalling tactic to thwart the elected majority.

The word "filibuster" has appeared in 25 T&G editorials since the online presence reflected in the Mass Library System's database, and in not one instance was the Senate's special rule called a good thing.

On Oct. 6, 1994, after bemoaning the gridlock of the 103rd Congress through, among other things, use of the filibuster, the paper complained: "Despite the reform fervor that swept the 103rd Congress into office two years ago - and despite the efforts of many reform-minded newcomers - the session was marked by polarization, gridlock, extreme partisanship and self-serving business as usual."

The T&G would turn up the heat on the tactic calling it "an unworthy intrusion of personal and partisan politics into the confirmation proceedings," and a "petty political maneuver."
A Democratic attempt to filibuster against a term-limits bill got the goat of a paper, which thundered: “this partisan filibuster is another illustration of why the concept of congressional term limits, modeled on the two-term limit already in effect for presidents, has won such broad support."

T&G anti-filibuster fever broke ever wider over the use of the “obstructionist” tactic to block bipartisan campaign finance reform, finally concluding on Sept. 9, 1998: "Using a filibuster to block legislation is precisely the sort of cynical cloakroom tactic that has alienated so many Americans from government."

We can do nothing on health care. We can do nothing on climate change. Leave both to the market, or to our emperiled grandkids. And it's OK, as long as a "cynical cloakroom tactic that has alienated so many Americans from government" is put in the proper hands.

Mass. tightens data privacy protections in big way

Rigorous requirements covering collection of employee and customer information will take effect early next year under a new state law designed to prevent breaches and protect the Massachusetts residents from identity theft.

John Moynihan, a former state data security protection officer, told my networking group recently that fines under the law will run up to $5,000 per record for breaches. So the loss of 200 records equals $1 million in fines.

The law requires people and companies that collect and work with confidential data such as credit card info or Social Security numbers to have security plans in place, according to Moynihan. It covers every employee in a position to access data and places requirements for data protection and encryption not only on computers but on mobile devices.
Even a vendor who handles personal data collected by a client has to get a written assurance from that client that they are in compliance with a security plan in place.

Companies need not be Massachusetts based to fall under the law. Thus a bank or credit card company out of state has to be responsible if they have any personal data on Massachusetts residents.

The law is considered a groundbreaker, Moynihan said, and so the rush is on in Congress to use it as a model for national legislation. This way data collectors don’t have a patchwork of regulation to deal with in the various states.

This is good for consumers and tricky for businesses and organizations. Those of you taking credit cards online or in person will want to make sure your processors are in compliance.

The business networking group to which I belong, Community Business Associates, was fortunate to be out front on hearing about this issue. Several area chambers of commerce are running larger programs soon on compliance with the statute. It would be a good idea for your group or company to find out all you can. The law is effective in March 2010.

John Moynihan is managing director of Minuteman Governance Inc., a Hopkinton consultancy that provides information security services throughout the public and private sectors. Prior to founding Minuteman, John was information security officer for the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, where he was responsible for the agency's information security and internal audit functions.

In response to a question, he warned our group that several contractors with dubious (my word) credentials have appeared claiming to be able to make businesses and organizations compliant with the law. For more information on the requirements, visit http://www.minutemangovernance.com/

For insights on credible communication, visit www.datzmedia.com

A 'D Word' update on the 'R Word'

About two weeks after this was posted in November, a government panel annointed the recession as a recession and it immediately became the "worst since the Great Depression." But here we go again. For all the same reasons, "near-depression" would aptly describe the situation in early 2009 but will not be used.

By January, 30 percent of American adults believed we were in a depression. Now it's March and things are much more serious. And on March 10 the Rasmussen poll showed 53% of Americans think we're heading into a 1930s kind of depression in the next few years. I think the pollsters may be pressured to shy away from the "are we there yet" question, just as the press feels pressure to jack our chins up.

And just as last fall, a flimsy standard is used: 20 percent unemployment per the Great Depression. Maybe we're parcing our terms here, but can't there be a depression that's not so great? Say, 14 percent unemployment? That wouldn't be so great. And it's more than a dip, a downturn or a dilly of a pickel we're in. Lowercase-d depression is within reach, thus near. So the proper term on the economic gloom barometer: As of mid-March, near-depression. Majority rules.




A yardstick of just how timid our press has become is the very existence of "The R Word" as a synonym for recession, the state of our economy that most people know we have been in for some time.

By uttering "the R word" and giving a wink, the media are essentially saying: "Isn't it cute how we don't say 'recession?'"

Well no, it's not. Because it reflects the way they have been goaded into abandoning their role as truth-tellers, their duty to call 'em as anyone can see 'em.

More recently the Bush administration's media handlers made it clear they didn't want the word "bailout" applied to the bailout of underachieving capitalists by the working public. They wanted the word "relief" applied, and some journalists gave it serious consideration. The Associated Press responded, to its credit, by putting out a small sidebar defining the two terms and making it clear to anyone who can read that it is a bailout, just as it was for Chrysler in the 1970s. Much of the press has since called a bailout a bailout on a consistent basis.
But Wikipedia provides a pretty clear summary of why news organizations can't screw on the courage to do their job with "recession."

A recession is a contraction phase of the business cycle, or "a period of
reduced economic activity." The U.S. based National Bureau of Economic Research
(NBER) defines a recession more broadly as "a significant decline in economic
activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally
visible in real GDP growth, real personal income, employment (non-farm
payrolls), industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales." A sustained
recession may become a depression.

Some business & investment glossaries add to the general definition a rule of thumb that recessions are often indicated by two consecutive quarters of negative growth (or contraction) of gross domestic product (GDP). Newspapers often quote this rule of thumb, however the measure fails to register several official (NBER defined) US recessions.

So what the media have done instead is to use forms of the word recession when others do in directly quoting them, or use variations like "approaching a recession" or "recessionary."

The absurdity of this is has become so obvious it has to be wiped out of our eyes, as the stock market, unemployment and other indicators plunge in ways not seen in 14 years, then 26 years, etc. Because during those spans there have been what everyone knew and history recorded as recessions: the Reagan recession, the recession that toppled Bush I, etc. — and as the news reports state, the indicators are worse now than during those times. Yet the media cling to the standard handed down from the White House and a desperate Wall Street — the one, as cited above, that "fails to register several official (NBER defined) US recessions."

Why is this? Do the media feel a patriotic duty to bolster public confidence, as in time of war when they have historically snuffed information at the request of our government? In this case cooperation was politically tainted when there was a campaign for the presidency recently, because it understated the reality of the past two years. Yet it was so effective that even the opposing presidential candidates dutifully avoided saying "recession."

The press has no such cheerleading duties for the economy, yet today's journalism seems to take it on. It's part of a general head-nodding approach to accepting handouts rather than reporting reality, and it's dangerous.

It seems to have become a reflex to run with what they're given as corporate ownership increases job reductions in the media, and the reliance on "official" sources increases. As everyday people look around themselves and recognize things for what they are, they are less inclined to trust the "trusted sources of information," leading to continuing declines in news consumption, as opposed to commentary, a corresponding need for still more staff reductions, and a willingness to do even less valuable work.

In other words, the cancer feeds off itself.

Bob Datz is a marketing communications consultant and remains a journalist at heart and in fact. Learn more at www.datzmedia.com

Chucking old labels as we embrace change

It seems we’re redefining everything around us to conform to this new era of hope/desperation. So while we’re at it how about we update the terms we use to describe some social phenomena that are no longer phenomenal.

Labels are handy, but they can become a substitute for actually saying something meaningful. If I just slap a label on somebody, that tells you all you need to know about their point of view, right? Unfortunately, media reports that are supposed to provide insight into issues often fall back to handy labels either to save space or thought. Go ahead and deconstruct a political rant or news article. Throw out the labels and, if you’re lucky, you may be left with a nugget of substance every 10 paragraphs.

But if we're going to have labels, let's keep them up to date like we do our antivirus software (a pretty apt analogy). Here are a few everyday labels to replace, with suggested updates as available. Got ideas for others? Let me know..

Business Leaders: Do you know any anymore? A leader is someone you look up to as an inspiration or an example, someone who motivates you to do your best. Someone you willingly follow. In the best situations leaders are selected by those they lead.

Who picked the CEO of Bank of America or General Motors as a business leader? Or Donald Trump? Would that term traditionally apply to them? You bet. They lead in that they best milk the system, whether it’s in bankruptcy court, government bailouts or rising to their office by failing to protest the blunders or shortsightedness in their industries. A career based on avoiding headaches is hardly a showing of leadership. Rich guys? OK. Business “interests,” maybe. Leaders? Hardly.

Consumer: While technically a correct term for an important cog in the economic machine, the Naderite version of the term has corrupted its true meaning. Nader’s vision of an aware or wary user of goods and services, one who doesn’t deserve exploding gas tanks and toxic chew toys, ignores our role as as a guilty party in the degradation of the planet. Let's face it, to be an active consumer is to be an active producer of solid waste – garbage. And, thankfully, most Americans know this today. So this is an apt term for someone taking a bite out of the world’s resources. The term for someone who buys something is actually something of a throwback: customer. Let’s start using it again, alright? As in: “The customer is always right.”

Environmentalist (see also, “tree hugger”): These are now terms of exclusion as used by many who utter them. Any “ism” is exclusionary on a subconscious level. The suggestion is of something fringy, like someone who hugs trees. I don’t hug trees, do you? Yet I want my kids to live a fulfilling life well past my age in a hospitable environment. And their kids, too. So when the Zogby poll finds 89 percent of Americans agree we need to cut our dependence on non-renewable energy sources (in 2006), or when 73 percent of self-described moderates agree with Obama's call for legislation to address climate change now, who deserves to be labeled as “the other?”

But there are ism-ists out there. People who think that there is no man-made global warming, for example, because the press feels obligated to find one of them to “balance” its coverage of reality. I suggest the deniers become the labeled, rather than the rest of us. “Denialists,” in fact, would work for the global warming issue. For those trying to rationalize their own or their business’ pollution, I would again turn to the dictionary for the literal label: polluter. As in, “Polluters countered that the legislation would harm their business.” When’s the last time you saw that in a news story?

Labeling is even more insidious than spin. It presumes a common understanding and implies what that understanding is supposed to be.

As reliable information sources grow fewer and less reliable, keep your antennae up for labels and what or who is behind them. Trust more what is described than on how it is labeled, and if that description or demonstration is lacking, move on. It’s a painstaking process.

The 'R' Word: How about 'Reality?'

A yardstick of just how timid our press has become is the very existence of "The R Word" as a synonym for recession, the state of our economy that most people know we have been in for some time. By uttering "the R word" and giving a wink, the media are essentially saying: "Isn't it cute how we don't say 'recession?'"

Well no, it's not. Because it reflects the way they have been goaded into abandoning their role as truth-tellers, their duty to call 'em as anyone can see 'em.

More recently the Bush administration's media handlers made it clear they didn't want the word "bailout" applied to the bailout of underachieving capitalists by the working public. They wanted the word "relief" applied, and some journalists gave it serious consideration. The Associated Press responded, to its credit, by putting out a small sidebar defining the two terms and making it clear to anyone who can read that it is a bailout, just as it was for Chrysler in the 1970s. Much of the press has since called a bailout a bailout on a consistent basis. But Wikipedia provides a pretty clear summary of why news organizations can't screw on the courage to do their job with "recession."

A recession is a contraction phase of the business cycle, or "a period of reduced economic activity." The U.S. based National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) defines a recession more broadly as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP growth, real personal income, employment (non-farm payrolls), industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales." A sustained recession may become a depression.

Some business & investment glossaries add to the general definition a rule of thumb that recessions are often indicated by two consecutive quarters of negative growth (or contraction) of gross domestic product (GDP). Newspapers often quote this rule of thumb, however the measure fails to register several official (NBER defined) US recessions.

So what the media have done instead is to use forms of the word recession when others do in directly quoting them, or use variations like "approaching a recession" or "recessionary." The absurdity of this is has become so obvious it has to be wiped out of our eyes, as the stock market, unemployment and other indicators plunge in ways not seen in 14 years, then 26 years, etc. Because during those spans there have been what everyone knew and history recorded as recessions: the Reagan recession, the recession that toppled Bush I, etc. — and as the news reports state, the indicators are worse now than during those times. Yet the media cling to the standard handed down from the White House and a desperate Wall Street — the one, as cited above, that "fails to register several official (NBER defined) US recessions."

Why is this? Do the media feel a patriotic duty to bolster public confidence, as in time of war when they have historically snuffed information at the request of our government? In this case cooperation was politically tainted when there was a campaign for the presidency recently, because it understated the reality of the past two years. Yet it was so effective that even the opposing presidential candidates dutifully avoided saying "recession."

The press has no such cheerleading duties for the economy, yet today's journalism seems to take it on. It's part of a general head-nodding approach to accepting handouts rather than reporting reality, and it's dangerous. It seems to have become a reflex to run with what they're given as corporate ownership increases job reductions in the media, and the reliance on "official" sources increases.

As everyday people look around themselves and recognize things for what they are, they are less inclined to trust the "trusted sources of information," leading to continuing declines in news consumption, as opposed to commentary, a corresponding need for still more staff reductions, and a willingness to do even less valuable work. In other words, the cancer feeds off itself.

Journalists and Hobbyists

As the mainstream press collapses as an information source into a repository for press releases, promo and quick-hit, skin-deep reporting, it's often said that the Internet is supplanting the printed page and even television as the source of information for engaged citizens.

My questions are two:

• What kind of information?
• Citizens engaged in what?

If you are reading this, I'll assume you take it as a given that corporations have swallowed the vast majority of significant old-media outlets and, where that hasn't happened, many owners are quite satisfied to pander to and promote local interest groups of the business persuasion because their advertising depends on it. You may realize, for example, that:

• "American Idol" results and previews during Fox-affiliate newscasts fall not under commercial time (which has increased continuously during newscasts over the years) but during what's left of "news" minutes. "Idol" just happens to air on Fox.
• Words like "Advertorial" and "Communitainment" are spoken with straight faces in media business circles.
• Staff cutbacks have decimated reporting staffs. It leaves head-nodding TV interviewers and even the best-intentioned newspaper reporters thinking as much about their next assignment that day as they do about maybe asking a follow-up question.

This could be a glorious era for propaganda if there were not a new-media substitute for the kind of arm's-length, dispassionate truth-seeking that has guided Americans toward informed decision-making in years past.

Wait a minute: (Gulp!) There is no such substitute in sight.

The blogosphere, you say? Online magazines? YouTube? You jest!

When Thomas Paine published "Common Sense" during the run-up to the American Revolution, he was a blogger of sorts, making his living elsewhere. Political conversation such as his, informed by a deep understanding of certain Colonial sentiments, was nonetheless opinion. And it wasn't necessarily an opinion shared by the majority.

Then as now, people spent the bulk of their brain power on survival. Today we have the added burden of consumerism. We're no longer finding the time to participate in decision-making because we're finding plenty of time after work to fulfill our role as consumers. The media, fueled by sponsors, fuel that instinct.

Fox's "We report, you decide," is a wonderful slogan, but it's not really what happens. It's what is — and more important, what is not — reported that's the issue. Count how many newspaper or broadcast stories cast their audience members as active decision-makers vs. those casting people as passive consumers. And that's political bias aside.

It's what Bill Moyers refers to as "the illusion of popular consent." The decisions are all made for you. After all, as you hear so often in this democracy: "What can you do about it?"

People who sense this find it easier to run with what they hear, and that's why blog consumers may increase in numbers, but not necessarily in knowledge. They are not usually spanning the spectrum even to gather opinion, but flock to what they already think, like talk-radio listeners do.

The fact that reporters and editors paid by the corporate press find time to blog further contributes to the loss of actual, get-your-hands-dirty information-gathering. They quote themselves and each other on a regular basis but seldom do blogs originate the research, do the math, add new source material to think about.

Repurposing is no substitute for journalism. If the mainstream press, with corporate funding, isn't eager to pay real journalists to do real journalism, then who is? Will you pay directly for an online subscription to a reliable news source? It hasn't worked that way for news outlets who have tried charging readers for access so far.

And the bloggers? Much was made when some brought down Dan Rather or an occasional whistleblower created a stir in the blogosphere, but their traction results only when the corporate media begin echoing the rants to a wider audience. In fact, the corporate media remain frequent links and sources for information in the blogosphere, and as we said at the outset, quality and selection there are withering.

The hobbyists among the bloggers are either burning out or reaching virtually no one. They have day jobs. They suffer, on a small scale, from the same issue that befuddles the media giants: How do you "monetize" new-media journalism? And how many among them ever had the intent, much less the ability, to ferret out information for information's sake?

Studies indicate that college students, perhaps our best and brightest hope for the future, are way more interested in Facebook than in the news.

The very nature of news websites, when they are viewed, is to cherry-pick interest areas without happening upon an article that's unintended but valuable. Narrow focus reinforces narrow minds.

In the current journalism/consumer environment, even those slits are closing to the light of day.

Bob Datz is a marketing communications consultant and remains a journalist at heart and in fact. Learn more at www.datzmedia.com

Pastor Wright Coverage: Another Opportunity to Miss the Point

One of the things journalists are supposed to be able to do is back up what they say or write. But the very setup of a story is also something that isn't necessarily a given.

This was clear in reporting on an issue that for most outlets is in the recent past: the incendiary words of Pastor Jeremiah Wright and his infamous 9-11 sermon. Thirty-five minutes long, it was disseminated in snippets over the Internet that amounted to less than two minutes of select rhetoric.

And in framing this story outlets from NPR to the New York Post calmly referred to the pastor's words as "hate speech."


Hate speech is pretty strong stuff, and the term has a meaning in modern usage. The American Heritage Dictionary 2000 edition defines it as bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group. That pretty well sums it up, and usually we don't have a lot of discussion about what constitutes it: We know it when we hear it.

Much hate speech comes in the form racial, ethnic, religious or anti-gay diatribes. These are sometimes laughed off as "politically incorrect" by individuals who are in need of serious self-examination. Most of us know that radio's Don Imus' comments on "nappy-headed ho's" fit the bill. We don't have to stop and think about whether the Nazis, KKK or radical religious elements fall into a gray area with much of what they say. The words speak for themselves.

No group has a lock on hate speech, and no group can escape being victimized. Of the 888 hate groups identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2007, for example, 88 were categorized as black nationalist. New Black Panther Party leader Khalid Muhammad, for example, uses clear hate phrases to in some way try and lift the self-esteem of black audiences — in much the same way white racists do on their side. His words won't soil this essay but are easily searchable online.


Pastor Jeremiah Wright's words that are being picked up opportunistically and edited down to cast a shadow over Barak Obama's presidential campaign don't even come close to hate speech. Hate speech is directed at individuals and groups that did nothing but be born into this world the way they are.

Because words are spoken in anger, that doesn't qualify them as hate speech. Someone who loses a family member for lack of health insurance probably wouldn't speak about politely about interests that work the power structure to make sure that situation persists. Normal people don't take kindly to those they see as responsible for needless, immoral death.

In the same way, a member of a racial group that has undeniably been shafted since being brought to this continent in chains may have an intemperate thing or two to say, a policy disagreement or two with the political establishment.

Although he was addressing a black congregation, Wright was talking about a policy disagreement when he said "God damn America" rather than "God bless America." He didn't say "white America." And what he was damning, if anyone chooses to listen to his entire speech, was a Mideast policy that for decades has supported the expropriation of Palestine and cozies up to oil-soaked authoritarian regimes. That's not hate speech; that's free speech.


It's the kind of policy debate we haven't heard while Fox has kept up the drumbeat about Rev. Wright as the most meaningful issue in a Barak Obama presidential campaign.

Bob Datz is a marketing communications consultant and remains a journalist at heart and in fact. Learn more at www.datzmedia.com.