The Constant Columnist
A potpourri by visitors to our site. No theme, no premise, no specific topic. To contribute, send your piece in an email (mailbox@nypressclub.org). Attach a headshot and if appropriate, an illustrative graphic.
Beatrice Williams-Rude
Formerly on the copy desks of the New York Post and the New York Daily News, Beatrice was a book reviewer for Variety and she
freelances as a researcher, copy editor, book reviewer, and writer.
04/2013 - Review of documentary film, "War on Whistleblowers"
“War on Whistleblowers,” a documentary movie subtitled Free Press and the National Security State, was shown to an invited audience recently and followed by a panel discussion moderated by Margaret Sullivan, Public Editor of The New York Times.
The film, while coolly presented, is deeply disturbing. The attacks on those who would bring government wrongdoing to light also constitute a war on communications media. Particular targets are The New York Times and “60 Minutes,” but also Newsweek, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, and The New Yorker, among others.
“War on Whistleblowers” focuses on four cases: Michael DeKort, Thomas Drake, Franz Gayl and Thomas Tamm. Of disparate backgrounds, ages, fields of expertise and sources of wrongdoing on which they were shining the light, their commonality was conscience, doing what was right, what needed to be done, irrespective of the consequences to themselves. All were attempting to defend the US Constitution.
What happened to them as a result of their courageous service to the public is as frightening as it is outrageous.
Franz Gayl took on his beloved Marine Corps for failing to provide mine-resistant (MRAPs) vehicles in Iraq, which had been requested. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was later to credit the MRAPs with saving thousands of lives. Yet Gayl was the target of retaliation for years. This self-styled “conservative” who comes from a family of FBI agents and whose prize possessions include a photo of himself as a boy with J Edgar Hoover, was, among other punishments, stripped of his security clearance, which had a deleterious effect on employment opportunities.
Michael DeKort was also attempting to save lives in reporting the dangerous inadequacies of the Coast Guard Deepwater program, including radios for emergency vessels that were not waterproof and hulls that would buckle in rough seas. DeKort, who was a Lockheed Martin project manager, brought his concerns up the chain of command to no avail. In desperation he posted the ugly story on YouTube. While DeKort finally received an award for outstanding service in the public interest at the US House of Representatives, finding employment remains a problem because of the allegations made against him during the government inquiry.
Thomas Tamm, a former attorney in the US Dept. of Justice, uncovered warrantless wiretapping by the NSA. While he received the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling in 2009, his economic life has suffered. He left the DoJ and formed his own law firm but he noted wryly that customers are not streaming in the doors.
Thomas Drake, a former senior executive of the National Security Agency, faced the harshest threats for his disclosures of waste, fraud and illegal activities by the government. He cited a boondoggle program called Trailblazer while an alternative program called Thinthread was a fraction of the cost and not only provided superior intelligence but was designed to protect 4th Amendment rights under the Constitution. He exposed the Stellar Wind program, a super-secret warrantless surveillance program approved by the Bush White House that violated Americans’ privacy rights. Drake was charged under the 1917 Espionage Act and faced 35 years in prison.
Ultimately the DoJ’s criminal case against him collapsed. He won the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling in 2011, and with Jesselyn Radack, of the Government Accountability Project, the Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award.
Drake, called by some “the smartest man in the room,” was financially devastated by his legal bills and now works in an Apple store.
Along with these heroic whistleblowers, the reporters who wrote their stories and the publishers who ran them, were/are subject to harassment and threats. There are ever more laws against shining the light into government’s dark secrets. It has been said, “Doctors bury their mistakes,” governments stamp them “classified.”
Eisenhower’s warning “Beware the military-industrial complex” was never more apt. The events of 9/11 became the carte blanche for anything labeled “security.” While the Bush-Cheney administration set up the framework, the Obama administration, while publicly proclaiming “transparency,” has intensified the program and added penalties for whistleblowers.
A bright light is then Senator, now, VP Joe Biden, who was cited as having come to the aid of whistleblowers.
Among the journalists in the movie are Seymour Hersh; Bill Keller (New York Times Op-Ed columnist); Dana Priest (Washington Post); David Carr (The New York Times); Michael Isikoff (NBC News) Jane Mayer (The New Yorker); Glenn Greenwald (The Guardian); Tom Vanden Brook (USA Today) and Eric Lipton (The New York Times).
There was unanimity regarding the burgeoning of the “security state” based on “endless war” and the chilling effect on journalism and its practitioners.
Also in the movie is CIA/torture whistleblower John Kiriakou, who was sentenced to 30 months in prison while the torturers he exposed are free (one thinks of VP Dick Cheney, who still defends the torture program and insists water-boarding is just enhanced interrogation). Daniel Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame, was prominent and articulate. Toward the end of the film the Bradley Manning case was examined, including his three years mostly in solitary confinement and being kept incommunicado.
While the movie consists largely of talking heads—some eloquent, others measured, but all informative—there is also footage of raids being made with dozens of agents turning homes upside down, multiple police cars and frightened families.
The most dramatic scene, showing the weakness of Humvees, has us, the audience, seemingly in one such vehicle as it hits an insurgent’s mine and blows up. It was because of such incidents that Franz Gayl blew the whistle while every means was taken by the government and the Humvee manufacturer to suppress the information.
The public’s right to know, indeed need to know, lies buried beneath the security bureaucracy.
The panel after the showing thoughtfully assessed the ever worsening situation of government acting illegally.
It was moderated by Margaret Sullivan, Public Editor of The New York Times; panelists were Amy Goodman, broadcast journalist and host of “Democracy Now!”; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The Nation; and Tom Vanden Brook, Pentagon reporter for USA today.
The bottom line is that “War on Whistleblowers” is a must-see movie: every citizen should be made aware of the misfeasance of those in power. How else can the abuses be curbed?
The movie, from Brave New Foundation, was produced by Robert Greenwald, Jim Miller and Natalie Kottke and executive produced by Jeff Cole. It was directed by Robert Greenwald and edited by Joseph Suzuki.
The film, while coolly presented, is deeply disturbing. The attacks on those who would bring government wrongdoing to light also constitute a war on communications media. Particular targets are The New York Times and “60 Minutes,” but also Newsweek, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, and The New Yorker, among others.
“War on Whistleblowers” focuses on four cases: Michael DeKort, Thomas Drake, Franz Gayl and Thomas Tamm. Of disparate backgrounds, ages, fields of expertise and sources of wrongdoing on which they were shining the light, their commonality was conscience, doing what was right, what needed to be done, irrespective of the consequences to themselves. All were attempting to defend the US Constitution.
What happened to them as a result of their courageous service to the public is as frightening as it is outrageous.
Franz Gayl took on his beloved Marine Corps for failing to provide mine-resistant (MRAPs) vehicles in Iraq, which had been requested. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was later to credit the MRAPs with saving thousands of lives. Yet Gayl was the target of retaliation for years. This self-styled “conservative” who comes from a family of FBI agents and whose prize possessions include a photo of himself as a boy with J Edgar Hoover, was, among other punishments, stripped of his security clearance, which had a deleterious effect on employment opportunities.
Michael DeKort was also attempting to save lives in reporting the dangerous inadequacies of the Coast Guard Deepwater program, including radios for emergency vessels that were not waterproof and hulls that would buckle in rough seas. DeKort, who was a Lockheed Martin project manager, brought his concerns up the chain of command to no avail. In desperation he posted the ugly story on YouTube. While DeKort finally received an award for outstanding service in the public interest at the US House of Representatives, finding employment remains a problem because of the allegations made against him during the government inquiry.
Thomas Tamm, a former attorney in the US Dept. of Justice, uncovered warrantless wiretapping by the NSA. While he received the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling in 2009, his economic life has suffered. He left the DoJ and formed his own law firm but he noted wryly that customers are not streaming in the doors.
Thomas Drake, a former senior executive of the National Security Agency, faced the harshest threats for his disclosures of waste, fraud and illegal activities by the government. He cited a boondoggle program called Trailblazer while an alternative program called Thinthread was a fraction of the cost and not only provided superior intelligence but was designed to protect 4th Amendment rights under the Constitution. He exposed the Stellar Wind program, a super-secret warrantless surveillance program approved by the Bush White House that violated Americans’ privacy rights. Drake was charged under the 1917 Espionage Act and faced 35 years in prison.
Ultimately the DoJ’s criminal case against him collapsed. He won the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling in 2011, and with Jesselyn Radack, of the Government Accountability Project, the Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award.
Drake, called by some “the smartest man in the room,” was financially devastated by his legal bills and now works in an Apple store.
Along with these heroic whistleblowers, the reporters who wrote their stories and the publishers who ran them, were/are subject to harassment and threats. There are ever more laws against shining the light into government’s dark secrets. It has been said, “Doctors bury their mistakes,” governments stamp them “classified.”
Eisenhower’s warning “Beware the military-industrial complex” was never more apt. The events of 9/11 became the carte blanche for anything labeled “security.” While the Bush-Cheney administration set up the framework, the Obama administration, while publicly proclaiming “transparency,” has intensified the program and added penalties for whistleblowers.
A bright light is then Senator, now, VP Joe Biden, who was cited as having come to the aid of whistleblowers.
Among the journalists in the movie are Seymour Hersh; Bill Keller (New York Times Op-Ed columnist); Dana Priest (Washington Post); David Carr (The New York Times); Michael Isikoff (NBC News) Jane Mayer (The New Yorker); Glenn Greenwald (The Guardian); Tom Vanden Brook (USA Today) and Eric Lipton (The New York Times).
There was unanimity regarding the burgeoning of the “security state” based on “endless war” and the chilling effect on journalism and its practitioners.
Also in the movie is CIA/torture whistleblower John Kiriakou, who was sentenced to 30 months in prison while the torturers he exposed are free (one thinks of VP Dick Cheney, who still defends the torture program and insists water-boarding is just enhanced interrogation). Daniel Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame, was prominent and articulate. Toward the end of the film the Bradley Manning case was examined, including his three years mostly in solitary confinement and being kept incommunicado.
While the movie consists largely of talking heads—some eloquent, others measured, but all informative—there is also footage of raids being made with dozens of agents turning homes upside down, multiple police cars and frightened families.
The most dramatic scene, showing the weakness of Humvees, has us, the audience, seemingly in one such vehicle as it hits an insurgent’s mine and blows up. It was because of such incidents that Franz Gayl blew the whistle while every means was taken by the government and the Humvee manufacturer to suppress the information.
The public’s right to know, indeed need to know, lies buried beneath the security bureaucracy.
The panel after the showing thoughtfully assessed the ever worsening situation of government acting illegally.
It was moderated by Margaret Sullivan, Public Editor of The New York Times; panelists were Amy Goodman, broadcast journalist and host of “Democracy Now!”; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The Nation; and Tom Vanden Brook, Pentagon reporter for USA today.
The bottom line is that “War on Whistleblowers” is a must-see movie: every citizen should be made aware of the misfeasance of those in power. How else can the abuses be curbed?
The movie, from Brave New Foundation, was produced by Robert Greenwald, Jim Miller and Natalie Kottke and executive produced by Jeff Cole. It was directed by Robert Greenwald and edited by Joseph Suzuki.
03/2013 - "Last Gulp," 2013 Inner Circle Roast
A meteor is the brightest object in the night sky, albeit briefly. Similarly, the Inner Circle (dinner and lampoon) light up Manhattan, but for one night a year. This year, however, it was more like a meteorite shower.
A super-show was expected because it would be Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s last hurrah as NYC mayor. And it was. Starting with “The Star Spangled Banner,” which musical director Kathy Beaver cleverly transposed to a key sufficiently low for most people to actually sing it, right through to Mayor Mike’s extravaganza. He managed to top even himself bringing with him the casts of four Broadway shows.
The Inner Circle’s efforts began with a delightful homage à Mayor Ed Koch. There were clips from his various Inner Circle appearances as well as interviews.
A note for the uninitiated: The Inner Circle is an invitation-only group of political writers. It’s not in the phone book. It dates from 1923 and at one time was solely male and made up solely of print journalists. At the annual dinner and lampoon, women could not sit with the men, but were relegated to the balcony be they mayors’ wives or publishers. In 1958, when Edward Katcher of the New York Post was president of the Inner Circle, the paper's owner and publisher, Dorothy Schiff, was not permitted to sit with the other publishers. She graciously remarked afterward, having been seated with the women, that she hadn’t realized how interesting Post wives were.
When women and electronic journalists were admitted, both the look and the substance of the show changed. Prior to John Lindsay, mayors responded to the Inner Circle’s barbs with speeches. The Lindsay administration brought Florence Henderson and special material. They sang a song, “John Is Always Wrong” and did a soft shoe routine. The following year he brought Josephine Premice and Chita Rivera.
So what could physically unprepossessing Abe Beam do to top his handsome, debonair predecessor? He brought the cast of “A Chorus Line.” That set a precedent and mayors have been bringing Broadway musicals ever since.
In this year's lampoon, Andrew Siff was spot on as Mayor Bloomberg even managing to emulate the timbre of his voice.
Many members of the New York Press Club are also part of the Inner Circle and perform in its lampoons. Gabe Pressman was a delight playing (G)Abe Lincoln. Stan Brooks and Rich Lamb were ubiquitous and well-received.
Mary Alice Williams and Magee Hickey were particularly effective—and witty—as Michele Bachmann and Eric Cantor singing “We Cain’t Say Yes” (to the tune of “I Can’t Say No”). John Slattery as Pope Benedict and Shelly Strickler did a beautiful turn with “It Used to be Loverly” (“Wouldn’t It Be Loverly”). And bringing a classically trained voice to “I Dreamed a Dream,” Molly Gordy was delicious as a Hostess Twinkie.
It has been oft said about the Inner Circle and politicians, that to be skewered is painful, but to be ignored is worse. In the first act, skewering was the fate of the current crop of mayoral candidates exemplified by the witty “A Sad Crew of Candidates” (to the tune of “Mrs. Robinson”).
A leit motif of the second act was that an asteroid was on the way to hitting earth. The potentially devastating asteroid was shown—the face of Donald Trump. But his name was never mentioned. He face was flashed when there were descriptions of the damage the asteroid could do in various areas—“Maybe we’ll get lucky and it’ll land in Albany”—but the name “Donald Trump” was not uttered.
The Inner Circle part of the evening came to a glorious conclusion to strains of the Beethoven ninth symphony and “The Ode to Joy,” joy resulting from the planet’s having been saved from the Donald Trump asteroid.
Then came the mayor—along with the casts of “Rock of Ages,” “Nice Work, If You Can Get it,” “Phantom of the Opera,” and “Annie.” No matter one’s feelings about his policies, at the Inner Circle one loves Mayor Mike. He can’t carry a tune, but he warbles on. He can’t dance but permits himself to be tossed, carried, pulled, pushed. He’s game. And nobody makes harsher fun of Mike Bloomberg than Mike Bloomberg.
While many lines of both the Inner Circle show and the Bloomberg super-extravaganza flash rapier wit, some are flat out blows without the velvet glove of humor. This leads to various responses from specific tables, depending upon who’s being savaged.
That said, it was a memorable evening. A joyous occasion. We shall miss Mayor Bloomberg. He’s an original whose like we shall not see again.
A super-show was expected because it would be Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s last hurrah as NYC mayor. And it was. Starting with “The Star Spangled Banner,” which musical director Kathy Beaver cleverly transposed to a key sufficiently low for most people to actually sing it, right through to Mayor Mike’s extravaganza. He managed to top even himself bringing with him the casts of four Broadway shows.
The Inner Circle’s efforts began with a delightful homage à Mayor Ed Koch. There were clips from his various Inner Circle appearances as well as interviews.
A note for the uninitiated: The Inner Circle is an invitation-only group of political writers. It’s not in the phone book. It dates from 1923 and at one time was solely male and made up solely of print journalists. At the annual dinner and lampoon, women could not sit with the men, but were relegated to the balcony be they mayors’ wives or publishers. In 1958, when Edward Katcher of the New York Post was president of the Inner Circle, the paper's owner and publisher, Dorothy Schiff, was not permitted to sit with the other publishers. She graciously remarked afterward, having been seated with the women, that she hadn’t realized how interesting Post wives were.
When women and electronic journalists were admitted, both the look and the substance of the show changed. Prior to John Lindsay, mayors responded to the Inner Circle’s barbs with speeches. The Lindsay administration brought Florence Henderson and special material. They sang a song, “John Is Always Wrong” and did a soft shoe routine. The following year he brought Josephine Premice and Chita Rivera.
So what could physically unprepossessing Abe Beam do to top his handsome, debonair predecessor? He brought the cast of “A Chorus Line.” That set a precedent and mayors have been bringing Broadway musicals ever since.
In this year's lampoon, Andrew Siff was spot on as Mayor Bloomberg even managing to emulate the timbre of his voice.
Many members of the New York Press Club are also part of the Inner Circle and perform in its lampoons. Gabe Pressman was a delight playing (G)Abe Lincoln. Stan Brooks and Rich Lamb were ubiquitous and well-received.
Mary Alice Williams and Magee Hickey were particularly effective—and witty—as Michele Bachmann and Eric Cantor singing “We Cain’t Say Yes” (to the tune of “I Can’t Say No”). John Slattery as Pope Benedict and Shelly Strickler did a beautiful turn with “It Used to be Loverly” (“Wouldn’t It Be Loverly”). And bringing a classically trained voice to “I Dreamed a Dream,” Molly Gordy was delicious as a Hostess Twinkie.
It has been oft said about the Inner Circle and politicians, that to be skewered is painful, but to be ignored is worse. In the first act, skewering was the fate of the current crop of mayoral candidates exemplified by the witty “A Sad Crew of Candidates” (to the tune of “Mrs. Robinson”).
A leit motif of the second act was that an asteroid was on the way to hitting earth. The potentially devastating asteroid was shown—the face of Donald Trump. But his name was never mentioned. He face was flashed when there were descriptions of the damage the asteroid could do in various areas—“Maybe we’ll get lucky and it’ll land in Albany”—but the name “Donald Trump” was not uttered.
The Inner Circle part of the evening came to a glorious conclusion to strains of the Beethoven ninth symphony and “The Ode to Joy,” joy resulting from the planet’s having been saved from the Donald Trump asteroid.
Then came the mayor—along with the casts of “Rock of Ages,” “Nice Work, If You Can Get it,” “Phantom of the Opera,” and “Annie.” No matter one’s feelings about his policies, at the Inner Circle one loves Mayor Mike. He can’t carry a tune, but he warbles on. He can’t dance but permits himself to be tossed, carried, pulled, pushed. He’s game. And nobody makes harsher fun of Mike Bloomberg than Mike Bloomberg.
While many lines of both the Inner Circle show and the Bloomberg super-extravaganza flash rapier wit, some are flat out blows without the velvet glove of humor. This leads to various responses from specific tables, depending upon who’s being savaged.
That said, it was a memorable evening. A joyous occasion. We shall miss Mayor Bloomberg. He’s an original whose like we shall not see again.
02/2013 - Age of the Amateur
“Everybody has his own business and show business.”
But increasingly everybody has everybody else’s business as well.
There are decreasing numbers of professionals, while the blogosphere is clogged with amateurs expressing their opinions on just about every subject and the airways are awash in amateurs seeking recognition of what they perceive as their talents.
Amateur, once a high compliment, means doing something for the love of it, rather than for pay. However, it became a synonym for unprofessional, inept, lacking in polish or know-how. Perhaps now it’s regaining its former luster as do-it-yourself becomes a way of life. From furniture in which DIY was upgraded to RTA (ready to assemble) to food, the consumer is becoming the front-and-center judge.
Some examples:
Angie’s List, in which consumers “just like you” rate the services being sought; Zagat’s, in which diners rate restaurants, competing with food critics; myriad bloggers whose backgrounds are largely unknown review shows; sites such as Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, Google, etc. feature book reviews by people who don’t necessarily have any credentials and in some cases haven’t even read the book being reviewed, according to a New York Times story that reported on the situation.
The problem with this form of participatory democracy is accuracy.
While working as playwright Dale Wasserman’s New York assistant, I was asked to correct mistakes about him on the Internet. What the distinguished author didn’t understand was that nobody can alter or add to anybody else’s blog. I found sites that claimed Dale was dead years before he died. While I pointed out the error to site after site, in large measure corrections were not made. Mistakes on the Internet continue into infinity.
I discovered that one site had the bio of the scion of a once-prominent family listing him as being 90-years old. He would be if he hadn’t died in 1997. It had his family consisting of his brother and sister-in-law, long deceased, but omitted his very much alive daughter. What non-professional compiled this?
In the wake of Ed Koch’s death I Googled Bess Myerson. What popped up was “Bess Myerson Death” and “Bess Myerson Death of Ovarian Cancer.” Upon further exploration it became clear that Bess Myerson is not dead and is living on the West Coast. What amateur would-be newshounds wrote her obituaries?
We hail the pictures taken by onlookers at demonstrations to which the accredited news people have been denied access. We get to see what governments don’t want us to see. But the question that has no answer is, are these photographs really what they’re purported to be? There’s no way to verify.
Union membership confers a professional status, whether pipefitter or performer. But union membership is decreasing, in no small part because of so-called “right to work” laws that impede organizing and collective bargaining.
Getting one’s Actors’ Equity card was a big deal. It opened doors, and kept them closed for non-members. But now non-Equity shows proliferate and Equity permits members to perform in them, when certain conditions are met.
The situation with AFTRA-SAG (the merged unit representing screen, TV and radio artists) is more complex. Unscripted (“Reality”) shows abound, meaning neither professional writers nor performers are involved, and amateur competitions in almost every category—dance, modeling, cooking—vie with traditional programming and, absent professionals—writers and actors—are far less costly to produce. With roots in Major Bowes on radio and Arthur Godfrey on TV, amateur hours occupy ever more of the electronic spectrum. “American Idol,” “Dancing With the Stars,” “Project Runway,” “The Voice,” “The Job” among them.
Professionals are being eliminated without thought of consequences – think about the increase of errors following the decrease of copy editors and fact checkers.
Even the august Metropolitan Opera has cut professionals. When Winnie Klotz, the Met’s official photographer for 27 years, left (was she forced out?) she was not replaced. No official photographer is listed on the program but while announcements proclaim that no photographs may be taken, patrons snap away at will, as was amply demonstrated at the end of the Feb. 21 telecast of the Oct. 27 performance of “Otello.”
Our founding fathers had professions—Ben Franklin, printer; John Adams, lawyer; Alexander Hamilton, banker: Benjamin Rush, physician; Thomas Jefferson, plantation owner; George Washington, surveyor and farmer—but were amateurs when it came to governing yet did so splendid a job they became examples to be emulated.
As professionals across industries are cut, amateurs pop up to fill the voids. As the staffs of newspapers and magazines are slashed, e-zines proliferate like mushrooms after rain. But among the portobellos could be toadstools. Caveat emptor.
And, Olympics aside, what amateur does not yearn to be a professional?
But increasingly everybody has everybody else’s business as well.
There are decreasing numbers of professionals, while the blogosphere is clogged with amateurs expressing their opinions on just about every subject and the airways are awash in amateurs seeking recognition of what they perceive as their talents.
Amateur, once a high compliment, means doing something for the love of it, rather than for pay. However, it became a synonym for unprofessional, inept, lacking in polish or know-how. Perhaps now it’s regaining its former luster as do-it-yourself becomes a way of life. From furniture in which DIY was upgraded to RTA (ready to assemble) to food, the consumer is becoming the front-and-center judge.
Some examples:
Angie’s List, in which consumers “just like you” rate the services being sought; Zagat’s, in which diners rate restaurants, competing with food critics; myriad bloggers whose backgrounds are largely unknown review shows; sites such as Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, Google, etc. feature book reviews by people who don’t necessarily have any credentials and in some cases haven’t even read the book being reviewed, according to a New York Times story that reported on the situation.
The problem with this form of participatory democracy is accuracy.
While working as playwright Dale Wasserman’s New York assistant, I was asked to correct mistakes about him on the Internet. What the distinguished author didn’t understand was that nobody can alter or add to anybody else’s blog. I found sites that claimed Dale was dead years before he died. While I pointed out the error to site after site, in large measure corrections were not made. Mistakes on the Internet continue into infinity.
I discovered that one site had the bio of the scion of a once-prominent family listing him as being 90-years old. He would be if he hadn’t died in 1997. It had his family consisting of his brother and sister-in-law, long deceased, but omitted his very much alive daughter. What non-professional compiled this?
In the wake of Ed Koch’s death I Googled Bess Myerson. What popped up was “Bess Myerson Death” and “Bess Myerson Death of Ovarian Cancer.” Upon further exploration it became clear that Bess Myerson is not dead and is living on the West Coast. What amateur would-be newshounds wrote her obituaries?
We hail the pictures taken by onlookers at demonstrations to which the accredited news people have been denied access. We get to see what governments don’t want us to see. But the question that has no answer is, are these photographs really what they’re purported to be? There’s no way to verify.
Union membership confers a professional status, whether pipefitter or performer. But union membership is decreasing, in no small part because of so-called “right to work” laws that impede organizing and collective bargaining.
Getting one’s Actors’ Equity card was a big deal. It opened doors, and kept them closed for non-members. But now non-Equity shows proliferate and Equity permits members to perform in them, when certain conditions are met.
The situation with AFTRA-SAG (the merged unit representing screen, TV and radio artists) is more complex. Unscripted (“Reality”) shows abound, meaning neither professional writers nor performers are involved, and amateur competitions in almost every category—dance, modeling, cooking—vie with traditional programming and, absent professionals—writers and actors—are far less costly to produce. With roots in Major Bowes on radio and Arthur Godfrey on TV, amateur hours occupy ever more of the electronic spectrum. “American Idol,” “Dancing With the Stars,” “Project Runway,” “The Voice,” “The Job” among them.
Professionals are being eliminated without thought of consequences – think about the increase of errors following the decrease of copy editors and fact checkers.
Even the august Metropolitan Opera has cut professionals. When Winnie Klotz, the Met’s official photographer for 27 years, left (was she forced out?) she was not replaced. No official photographer is listed on the program but while announcements proclaim that no photographs may be taken, patrons snap away at will, as was amply demonstrated at the end of the Feb. 21 telecast of the Oct. 27 performance of “Otello.”
Our founding fathers had professions—Ben Franklin, printer; John Adams, lawyer; Alexander Hamilton, banker: Benjamin Rush, physician; Thomas Jefferson, plantation owner; George Washington, surveyor and farmer—but were amateurs when it came to governing yet did so splendid a job they became examples to be emulated.
As professionals across industries are cut, amateurs pop up to fill the voids. As the staffs of newspapers and magazines are slashed, e-zines proliferate like mushrooms after rain. But among the portobellos could be toadstools. Caveat emptor.
And, Olympics aside, what amateur does not yearn to be a professional?
10/2012 - Direction of the theater: catch it if you can
As every vacant nook becomes a performance venue - including an area behind a police station, warehouses on the far West Side, people’s apartments on the East Side – this could be seen as a golden age for playwrights, performers and audiences.
New York City is rife with festivals: Fringe, Midtown, Irish, “Undesirable Elements,” women’s, solo performers; And just this summer, Samuel French the play publisher launched a theater school called the Samuel French Institute that occasionally presents segments of new works by contest-winning playwrights. The snippets ranged from good to superlative -- “I can hardly wait to see the whole play.”
For audience members, there are so many choices it can be confusing.
There are, as MGM claimed, more stars than in the heavens, revivals of plays by well-known authors (“Golden Boy,” a hit, “The Big Knife,” not, both by Clifford Odets; “The Heiress” courtesy of Henry James and Ruth and Augustus Goetz, and William Inge’s “Picnic” among them) and a panoply of musicals including Rodgers & Hammerstein’s “Cinderella.” There are myriad venues with ticket prices varying from $10 to many hundreds.
Plays in festivals rarely get more than a few performances and they are usually spread throughout the festival so only those close to those involved with a given work know the “when.”
Apart from festivals and special events, limited runs are pervasive, some lasting less than a month. This situation obtains not just off-off or off-Broadway. “Running on Empty,” Lewis Black’s Broadway vehicle, to be at the Richard Rodgers Theatre, was slated for six performances and extended to eight.
David Mamet’s new play, “Anarchist,” with powerhouse Patti LuPone and glamourpuss Debra Winger, a two-person play, is scheduled for a run of only 14 weeks. A revival of Mamet’s “Glengarry Glen Ross” starring Al Pacino will run but 10 weeks. Of course theater companies such as The Pearl have always had limited runs, but these companies are largely repertory groups with resident actors.
In addition, casts have become ever smaller, and solo works ubiquitous. Not good for actors!
In large measure, the theater no longer provides an evening’s entertainment. Many offerings last but 90 minutes, and some are as short as an hour. (It’s almost as if the Internet Age has ushered in shorter attention spans.)
Among the big names set to trod the boards are some whose fame stems from TV, including Ed Asner and Paul Rudd who will star in “Grace.” Of course Rudd also has stage and movie credits but Asner is best known as “Lou Grant” on both the Mary Tyler Moore show and the Lou Grant show.
Overall it appears that the theater is embracing minimalism: shorter plays, smaller casts, limited runs.
Yes, there are the big musicals—usually with big price tags. Even more child-friendly offerings are forthcoming, “Matilda” and a revival of “Annie” among them. The highly anticipated “Chaplin” just opened only to have “the little tramp” trampled by critics. And “Rebecca,” based on the Daphne du Maurier novel and featuring what was described as the biggest fire since the burning of Atlanta, is now on hold for financial reasons. But “Giant,” “Elf” and the “Mystery of Edwin Drood” are coming.
The theatrical cornucopia runneth over in terms of offerings (both new and revivals), venues and price tags. There would seem to be something for virtually everyone, if only one could find it in time. Catch it while you can!
New York City is rife with festivals: Fringe, Midtown, Irish, “Undesirable Elements,” women’s, solo performers; And just this summer, Samuel French the play publisher launched a theater school called the Samuel French Institute that occasionally presents segments of new works by contest-winning playwrights. The snippets ranged from good to superlative -- “I can hardly wait to see the whole play.”
For audience members, there are so many choices it can be confusing.
There are, as MGM claimed, more stars than in the heavens, revivals of plays by well-known authors (“Golden Boy,” a hit, “The Big Knife,” not, both by Clifford Odets; “The Heiress” courtesy of Henry James and Ruth and Augustus Goetz, and William Inge’s “Picnic” among them) and a panoply of musicals including Rodgers & Hammerstein’s “Cinderella.” There are myriad venues with ticket prices varying from $10 to many hundreds.
Plays in festivals rarely get more than a few performances and they are usually spread throughout the festival so only those close to those involved with a given work know the “when.”
Apart from festivals and special events, limited runs are pervasive, some lasting less than a month. This situation obtains not just off-off or off-Broadway. “Running on Empty,” Lewis Black’s Broadway vehicle, to be at the Richard Rodgers Theatre, was slated for six performances and extended to eight.
David Mamet’s new play, “Anarchist,” with powerhouse Patti LuPone and glamourpuss Debra Winger, a two-person play, is scheduled for a run of only 14 weeks. A revival of Mamet’s “Glengarry Glen Ross” starring Al Pacino will run but 10 weeks. Of course theater companies such as The Pearl have always had limited runs, but these companies are largely repertory groups with resident actors.
In addition, casts have become ever smaller, and solo works ubiquitous. Not good for actors!
In large measure, the theater no longer provides an evening’s entertainment. Many offerings last but 90 minutes, and some are as short as an hour. (It’s almost as if the Internet Age has ushered in shorter attention spans.)
Among the big names set to trod the boards are some whose fame stems from TV, including Ed Asner and Paul Rudd who will star in “Grace.” Of course Rudd also has stage and movie credits but Asner is best known as “Lou Grant” on both the Mary Tyler Moore show and the Lou Grant show.
Overall it appears that the theater is embracing minimalism: shorter plays, smaller casts, limited runs.
Yes, there are the big musicals—usually with big price tags. Even more child-friendly offerings are forthcoming, “Matilda” and a revival of “Annie” among them. The highly anticipated “Chaplin” just opened only to have “the little tramp” trampled by critics. And “Rebecca,” based on the Daphne du Maurier novel and featuring what was described as the biggest fire since the burning of Atlanta, is now on hold for financial reasons. But “Giant,” “Elf” and the “Mystery of Edwin Drood” are coming.
The theatrical cornucopia runneth over in terms of offerings (both new and revivals), venues and price tags. There would seem to be something for virtually everyone, if only one could find it in time. Catch it while you can!
05/2012 - In Praise of Copy Editors—and in Memoriam
The copy desk used to be a large, U-shaped table with the copy chief seated at the curve. He (it was almost always a “he”) gave the stories to the various copy editors seated to his left and right. There were spikes for the finished and sent stories. The “desk” was the last repository for stories before they were printed.
Copy editing for many was not so much a profession as an addiction: In addition to assigned stories, everything that was seen was corrected, from calendars (Presidents’ Day—the apostrophe must be after the second s) to menus (fillet or filet).
The copy editor was responsible for language, punctuation, clarity as well as the information in the piece. The copy editor also wrote the headlines.
This was changed when magazines split the job leaving copy editors with language duties and fact-checkers/researchers in control of content. It, in effect, set up an assembly line system in which parts could be replaced easily.
It had been oft repeated that a well-staffed copy desk could answer any question—that it would fall into somebody’s specialty, but that everybody would know how to find the necessary information. One woman had her phone programmed to libraries across the country: if the NYC libraries had closed for the night, those in San Francisco would still be open. If she could have, she would have included Hawaiian and Guam libraries and been able to work all night. Copy editors were the last to leave at day’s end.
Desks consisted of the most knowledgeable staffers, usually quite senior: the cliché was of a bespectacled graybeard with a green eyeshade.
Then came the computer. The copy chief could send the stories directly to the copy editors with a push of a button, and they could return the edited material as easily. Headlines: Whereas copy editors using hard copy could “count” the characters – two for upper case M’s and W’s, a half for lower case i’s and j’s, etc. – and obeyed the dicta that in a two-line headline the first line couldn’t end with a preposition, conjunction, or separate an adjective from its noun, the second line of a three line headline was subject to no such strictures. This is an art that was lost as computers allowed squeezing headlines to fit – imperceptibly downsizing and/or kerning.
Some years after Fairchild Publications was fully computerized, the second in command, Michael Coady, was quoted as saying that copy editors would soon be phased out, they were no longer needed, “spell-check” could do it all.
Alas, he was partially correct. Copy editors are increasingly being phased out as witness reports that the Denver Post has terminated two-thirds of its copy editors. He was incorrect, however, in assuming that spell-check could replace them. As long as what’s typed in is a word, it will be accepted by spell-check, never mind that it’s an inappropriate word.
Now when copy editors retire they are frequently not being replaced and when they are, it’s by newbies, not the seasoned journalists of old. The desk is, in effect, being used to acquaint neophytes with the profession, rather than utilizing the knowledge of experienced veterans.
And it shows. Even university presses are producing hard-cover books on serious subjects rife with typos, ambiguities and disparities.
Applause, a publisher whose specialty is theater and cinema books, has just released a beautiful, gracefully written work wherein Diahann Carroll’s name is missing the h in every reference; Cobina Wright’s name has an added r (Corbina); Katharine Graham’s name is correctly spelled on the dust jacket, but not always in the text; and in a all but one reference, Monique van Vooren’s name has the third o missing.
Regarding spell-check: It’s fine for typos, reversed letters and such, but not for context. If it’s a word, it gets through. Thus it makes no distinction between forgo (to relinquish—he had to forgo dessert) and forego (going before) or between desert (dry and sandy) and dessert (sweet and tasty).
Which brings us to uncharted territory where there are no rules: the blogosphere where opinion is all. While there are respected e-zines (the New York Press Club’s site among them), for every Huffington Post, Politico or Salon, there are thousands of free-lance bloggers. This is a world without editors, copy editors or fact checkers. Getting a correction is nigh on impossible. For example, there was a site that had distinguished playwright Dale Wasserman (book writer of “Man of La Mancha” and the stage version of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”) dead a decade before he died, yet he couldn’t get a correction!
The need for copy editors has never been greater even as their numbers dwindle and their contributions are ever less appreciated.
Copy editing for many was not so much a profession as an addiction: In addition to assigned stories, everything that was seen was corrected, from calendars (Presidents’ Day—the apostrophe must be after the second s) to menus (fillet or filet).
The copy editor was responsible for language, punctuation, clarity as well as the information in the piece. The copy editor also wrote the headlines.
This was changed when magazines split the job leaving copy editors with language duties and fact-checkers/researchers in control of content. It, in effect, set up an assembly line system in which parts could be replaced easily.
It had been oft repeated that a well-staffed copy desk could answer any question—that it would fall into somebody’s specialty, but that everybody would know how to find the necessary information. One woman had her phone programmed to libraries across the country: if the NYC libraries had closed for the night, those in San Francisco would still be open. If she could have, she would have included Hawaiian and Guam libraries and been able to work all night. Copy editors were the last to leave at day’s end.
Desks consisted of the most knowledgeable staffers, usually quite senior: the cliché was of a bespectacled graybeard with a green eyeshade.
Then came the computer. The copy chief could send the stories directly to the copy editors with a push of a button, and they could return the edited material as easily. Headlines: Whereas copy editors using hard copy could “count” the characters – two for upper case M’s and W’s, a half for lower case i’s and j’s, etc. – and obeyed the dicta that in a two-line headline the first line couldn’t end with a preposition, conjunction, or separate an adjective from its noun, the second line of a three line headline was subject to no such strictures. This is an art that was lost as computers allowed squeezing headlines to fit – imperceptibly downsizing and/or kerning.
Some years after Fairchild Publications was fully computerized, the second in command, Michael Coady, was quoted as saying that copy editors would soon be phased out, they were no longer needed, “spell-check” could do it all.
Alas, he was partially correct. Copy editors are increasingly being phased out as witness reports that the Denver Post has terminated two-thirds of its copy editors. He was incorrect, however, in assuming that spell-check could replace them. As long as what’s typed in is a word, it will be accepted by spell-check, never mind that it’s an inappropriate word.
Now when copy editors retire they are frequently not being replaced and when they are, it’s by newbies, not the seasoned journalists of old. The desk is, in effect, being used to acquaint neophytes with the profession, rather than utilizing the knowledge of experienced veterans.
And it shows. Even university presses are producing hard-cover books on serious subjects rife with typos, ambiguities and disparities.
Applause, a publisher whose specialty is theater and cinema books, has just released a beautiful, gracefully written work wherein Diahann Carroll’s name is missing the h in every reference; Cobina Wright’s name has an added r (Corbina); Katharine Graham’s name is correctly spelled on the dust jacket, but not always in the text; and in a all but one reference, Monique van Vooren’s name has the third o missing.
Regarding spell-check: It’s fine for typos, reversed letters and such, but not for context. If it’s a word, it gets through. Thus it makes no distinction between forgo (to relinquish—he had to forgo dessert) and forego (going before) or between desert (dry and sandy) and dessert (sweet and tasty).
Which brings us to uncharted territory where there are no rules: the blogosphere where opinion is all. While there are respected e-zines (the New York Press Club’s site among them), for every Huffington Post, Politico or Salon, there are thousands of free-lance bloggers. This is a world without editors, copy editors or fact checkers. Getting a correction is nigh on impossible. For example, there was a site that had distinguished playwright Dale Wasserman (book writer of “Man of La Mancha” and the stage version of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”) dead a decade before he died, yet he couldn’t get a correction!
The need for copy editors has never been greater even as their numbers dwindle and their contributions are ever less appreciated.
Juliet Papa, 1010 WINS
Juliet Papa is an award-winning reporter for 1010 WINS Radio, the top-ranked all-news station in the nation. A long-time Press Club member, Juliet's multi-disciplinary skills include photography,
acting, voice-acting; she has published two non-fiction books and contributes regularly to a number of news and special interest publications.
03/2013 - From Vatican City, Blog on the Election of a New Pope
The pageantry, the excitement, the mystery; the selection of the 266th Pope for the world’s Roman Catholics had all that and more – even a seagull played a crucial role!
The traditions were on full display in St. Peter’s Square, where thousands gathered each day to watch that six foot, skinny copper chimney atop the Sistine Chapel – which would let the world know that a new Pope was chosen. But the journey for me began with an announcement that shocked the world – the Pope who had been leading the Church since 2005 decided to step down.
Benedict XVI’s plans launched a chain of events that sent me back to Rome – where I’d been just the year before when New York’s then- archbishop Timothy Dolan was elevated to the status of Cardinal. And now he was going to be one of the electors of the new Pope – an exciting time for him and many of us who’d never experienced this first-hand.
In Rome, there were news conferences and technical set-ups, and logistics –all this as I brushed up on terminology – after all, what is a cardinals’ congregation? How will we understand the name of the new Pope uttered in Latin?
The time came for the conclave to begin – and the 115 cardinals solemnly entered the Sistine Chapel – where Vatican news feeds provided spectacular camera shots of the gorgeous frescoes and Michelangelo’s masterpiece, The Last Judgment, behind the altar. The doors symbolically closed and the cardinals began their secret balloting. Journalists watched as the crowds gathered in St. Peter’s Square – coming in by the thousands despite the cold and rain. The umbrellas provided a colorful panorama underneath the grand façade of St. Peter’s Basilica. Everyone ‘s eyes were cast toward that tiny chimney, just east of the Basilica.
Just so no one would miss it, jumbo screens had been set up in the Square to provide close-ups. The wait – and the watch -- was on , and as the expectation began to build, there came a pleasant distraction. A seagull decided to perch atop the chimney’s peaked cover. And it stayed there for quite a while – to the amusement of the crowd, and journalists alike. Someone even began a twitter account under the name “Sistine Seagull.” Little did anyone know that it was at that time that the cardinals had voted for Jorge Bergolio of Argentina as the next Pope.
He took the name Francis, after St. Francis of Assisi – a missionary who communed with nature and who was known to befriend the birds. The new Pope is also known to shun all the fancy trappings that goes with high office – so it seemed almost appropriate that the common seagull rested there; perhaps the dove representing the Holy Spirit put on his casual clothes. When the new Pope emerged onto the balcony – he smiled and waved . He was warm and inclusive, asking the crowd to join him in prayer. After their cheers and emotional tears, the thousands in the Square fell silent and bowed their heads.
The traditions were on full display in St. Peter’s Square, where thousands gathered each day to watch that six foot, skinny copper chimney atop the Sistine Chapel – which would let the world know that a new Pope was chosen. But the journey for me began with an announcement that shocked the world – the Pope who had been leading the Church since 2005 decided to step down.
Benedict XVI’s plans launched a chain of events that sent me back to Rome – where I’d been just the year before when New York’s then- archbishop Timothy Dolan was elevated to the status of Cardinal. And now he was going to be one of the electors of the new Pope – an exciting time for him and many of us who’d never experienced this first-hand.
In Rome, there were news conferences and technical set-ups, and logistics –all this as I brushed up on terminology – after all, what is a cardinals’ congregation? How will we understand the name of the new Pope uttered in Latin?
The time came for the conclave to begin – and the 115 cardinals solemnly entered the Sistine Chapel – where Vatican news feeds provided spectacular camera shots of the gorgeous frescoes and Michelangelo’s masterpiece, The Last Judgment, behind the altar. The doors symbolically closed and the cardinals began their secret balloting. Journalists watched as the crowds gathered in St. Peter’s Square – coming in by the thousands despite the cold and rain. The umbrellas provided a colorful panorama underneath the grand façade of St. Peter’s Basilica. Everyone ‘s eyes were cast toward that tiny chimney, just east of the Basilica.
Just so no one would miss it, jumbo screens had been set up in the Square to provide close-ups. The wait – and the watch -- was on , and as the expectation began to build, there came a pleasant distraction. A seagull decided to perch atop the chimney’s peaked cover. And it stayed there for quite a while – to the amusement of the crowd, and journalists alike. Someone even began a twitter account under the name “Sistine Seagull.” Little did anyone know that it was at that time that the cardinals had voted for Jorge Bergolio of Argentina as the next Pope.
He took the name Francis, after St. Francis of Assisi – a missionary who communed with nature and who was known to befriend the birds. The new Pope is also known to shun all the fancy trappings that goes with high office – so it seemed almost appropriate that the common seagull rested there; perhaps the dove representing the Holy Spirit put on his casual clothes. When the new Pope emerged onto the balcony – he smiled and waved . He was warm and inclusive, asking the crowd to join him in prayer. After their cheers and emotional tears, the thousands in the Square fell silent and bowed their heads.
Joanne Stevens: Lessons From the News Coach
Joanne Stevens has been helping television and radio journalists craft their skills in writing, reporting, anchoring and interviewing since 1980
through her consultancy, Stevens Media Consulting, Ltd.
"Lessons From the News Coach" also appears as a blog on the RTNDA Web site.
11/2011 - Stand-ups: They're Not All About You
I feel more and more as if I'm being distracted by reporter standups rather than being further edified about the story.
Movement: most news directors prefer to see you moving or doing something in your stand-up. After all - it's video. But walking down a supermarket aisle for no reason (hmmm...is that the soup aisle? Oh no - I think I see canned meats) only serves to make you look silly - and to distract me. If you think I'll believe that you happened to stop exactly at the boxed macaroni - a fabulous coincidence so that you could reach for it (almost without looking! Wow!) and use it as a crutch. Naah. Too cheesy.
Or last night, I watched a story about free eye surgeries for lucky people. The reporter suddenly appeared from around a corner in a hospital hallway - wearing scrubs - with the facemask dangling around his neck. I'd learned nothing about what the eye surgeries entailed - other than better vision. I only saw b-roll of what looked like surgeons in an OR. But here was the reporter - decked out like the doctor he perhaps always wanted to be. There was nothing in the package that led us to believe he'd been in the OR...nor did he refer to his outfit to explain if perhaps it was a germ-related necessity on that floor. It came across as a 'look ma! I'm a doctor'. It also didn’t help that it was two days before Halloween.
I feel the urge to remind you that it's not about you - it's about the story - and those who are part of it or effected by it. Sure, if there's something interesting or cogent that can be explained better by movement - that's great. 'Watch how this fabric ignites'...or 'listen to the engine on this bus'. Yes - walking might work too. E.g. walking to bring us along in a particular area so we can appreciate the story even more. E.g. , "the entire length of this curb" or "each of the five houses on this street" or "walking on this particular block can be dangerous because of [these tree roots/this dim lighting/the proximity to traffic, etc.]" A client once returned to the site of a tree that had toppled killing several young girls in a schoolbus. She did her own shooting. She positioned her camera on sticks and shot herself kneeling by the dirt where the tree had been. She scooped some soil and showed us how dry and sandy it was as it ran through her fingers. She did this while telling us about the investigation to determine if the soil in the area was too sandy to have sustained that particular species of tree.
Some of you may enjoy the drama of the standup and choose to milk it a bit. I watched a reporter step out from the smoke left by the fire that decimated an area in Texas. He too had a medical mask dangling around his neck. My concern was that he didn't refer to the smoke or tainted air or to the burnt vegetation around him. Yes, he talked about how devastating the fire had been but like the reporter in the food aisle and the reporter magically showing up in the hospital corridor, there was no reference to what we were looking at or to what he was experiencing ("the smoke here is still so thick that doctors say..." or "24 hours ago these burnt and singed bushes were..." ).
You are not in a contest to bring back the most clever or viral standup. Ideally you can show us something interesting in your standup...or at the very least 'just stand there' and explain where you are and why it's significant. You are on camera to communicate with us personally - not to assume the Shakespearean role of 'I'm on TV and you're not'. We all have different personalities. If five of us covered the same story the packages would not look the same.
But Shakespeare got it: "To thine own self be true". Trust yourself...and let the 'wings of your journalism' carry you to your best decision.
And as always - thank you for all that you do.
Movement: most news directors prefer to see you moving or doing something in your stand-up. After all - it's video. But walking down a supermarket aisle for no reason (hmmm...is that the soup aisle? Oh no - I think I see canned meats) only serves to make you look silly - and to distract me. If you think I'll believe that you happened to stop exactly at the boxed macaroni - a fabulous coincidence so that you could reach for it (almost without looking! Wow!) and use it as a crutch. Naah. Too cheesy.
Or last night, I watched a story about free eye surgeries for lucky people. The reporter suddenly appeared from around a corner in a hospital hallway - wearing scrubs - with the facemask dangling around his neck. I'd learned nothing about what the eye surgeries entailed - other than better vision. I only saw b-roll of what looked like surgeons in an OR. But here was the reporter - decked out like the doctor he perhaps always wanted to be. There was nothing in the package that led us to believe he'd been in the OR...nor did he refer to his outfit to explain if perhaps it was a germ-related necessity on that floor. It came across as a 'look ma! I'm a doctor'. It also didn’t help that it was two days before Halloween.
I feel the urge to remind you that it's not about you - it's about the story - and those who are part of it or effected by it. Sure, if there's something interesting or cogent that can be explained better by movement - that's great. 'Watch how this fabric ignites'...or 'listen to the engine on this bus'. Yes - walking might work too. E.g. walking to bring us along in a particular area so we can appreciate the story even more. E.g. , "the entire length of this curb" or "each of the five houses on this street" or "walking on this particular block can be dangerous because of [these tree roots/this dim lighting/the proximity to traffic, etc.]" A client once returned to the site of a tree that had toppled killing several young girls in a schoolbus. She did her own shooting. She positioned her camera on sticks and shot herself kneeling by the dirt where the tree had been. She scooped some soil and showed us how dry and sandy it was as it ran through her fingers. She did this while telling us about the investigation to determine if the soil in the area was too sandy to have sustained that particular species of tree.
Some of you may enjoy the drama of the standup and choose to milk it a bit. I watched a reporter step out from the smoke left by the fire that decimated an area in Texas. He too had a medical mask dangling around his neck. My concern was that he didn't refer to the smoke or tainted air or to the burnt vegetation around him. Yes, he talked about how devastating the fire had been but like the reporter in the food aisle and the reporter magically showing up in the hospital corridor, there was no reference to what we were looking at or to what he was experiencing ("the smoke here is still so thick that doctors say..." or "24 hours ago these burnt and singed bushes were..." ).
You are not in a contest to bring back the most clever or viral standup. Ideally you can show us something interesting in your standup...or at the very least 'just stand there' and explain where you are and why it's significant. You are on camera to communicate with us personally - not to assume the Shakespearean role of 'I'm on TV and you're not'. We all have different personalities. If five of us covered the same story the packages would not look the same.
But Shakespeare got it: "To thine own self be true". Trust yourself...and let the 'wings of your journalism' carry you to your best decision.
And as always - thank you for all that you do.
11/2011 - Our News Profession 10 Years Post-9/11
A Freaky 30-Year Cycle
I've been asked for my thoughts on how journalism has changed since 9/11. Upon contemplation I see us repeating an unexpected 30-year cycle:
The official American presence in Viet Nam ended in 1975. Gone were the bleak statistics...the angry politics...the ever-louder anti-war demonstrations...the news video covering the mayhem of war...the flag-draped coffins...the shattered veterans...and the grim anchors and reporters.
What happened next, however, pushed me over the edge - and into my business in 1981. Happy Talk! Cheerful, nattering anchors...clever, sometimes clown-like reporters...it was a journalism circus! Who could be more clever or memorable?
I was incredulous. What happened to the 'Hippocratic Oath' of journalism to do no harm? To edify the nation through solid reporting?
Things settled down a bit but the harm seemed permanent.
Then came September 11, 2001. We reverted to serious reporting. And once again - over these past 10 years - we began shaking off the cloud. Some classic video standards were seen as obsolete or reporters chose to shake them off. Jump cuts were OK - hey, tech rules. Loosen up! The white balance is off? What's your problem? Some elements seem to have been abandoned in teaching: writing out of SOT's? What's that? The creativity contest was in full swing. Writing car sales statistics with your finger on a dirty windshield! Measuring snowfall with a yardstick while you froze your butt off and risked hypothermia! How clever!
But the backlash has begun. My 19 year old god-daughter recently complained about a chipper reporter standing in the hurricane with disco-earrings flapping in the wind. Reporters standing in flood water at the risk of electrocution are being mocked. 'Journalists' who believe that reporting constitutes regurgitating spoon-fed 'company line' information or sharing what has been conveniently 'revealed' to them are being dismissed by viewers.
The glamour is reverting back to intellect. The prestige: to being respected for putting yourself on the line to get to the truth. The standup: either to show or explain something or to share frank, accurate information without a whoopee cushion or fabricated drama. The anchor banter and occasional hijinx: not a necessity, but unleashed spontaneity - in a natural and unforced moment.
So a freaky looping pattern: yep.
Cycling from the somberness of Viet Nam to the crazy, sometimes Fellini-like journalistic backlash. Then back around to the shock and tragedy of 9/11...followed by an abandoning or snubbing of some video reporting principles...and an influx of forced cleverness and creativity.
And now: we seem to be on our way back - thankfully - to acknowledging and embracing the real journalists and real journalism. I honestly believe that a well-constructed 1:30 package can pull us in like a good Scorsese movie. And yes - there have been some changes. As long as the reporting is solid we'll forgive the occasional shaky but important shot or compromised lighting or edit challenge.
The salaries: calmed down to offensively lower figures for the majority. But as I shared in my first column: if it’s in your blood, there's no turning back.
I've been asked for my thoughts on how journalism has changed since 9/11. Upon contemplation I see us repeating an unexpected 30-year cycle:
The official American presence in Viet Nam ended in 1975. Gone were the bleak statistics...the angry politics...the ever-louder anti-war demonstrations...the news video covering the mayhem of war...the flag-draped coffins...the shattered veterans...and the grim anchors and reporters.
What happened next, however, pushed me over the edge - and into my business in 1981. Happy Talk! Cheerful, nattering anchors...clever, sometimes clown-like reporters...it was a journalism circus! Who could be more clever or memorable?
I was incredulous. What happened to the 'Hippocratic Oath' of journalism to do no harm? To edify the nation through solid reporting?
Things settled down a bit but the harm seemed permanent.
Then came September 11, 2001. We reverted to serious reporting. And once again - over these past 10 years - we began shaking off the cloud. Some classic video standards were seen as obsolete or reporters chose to shake them off. Jump cuts were OK - hey, tech rules. Loosen up! The white balance is off? What's your problem? Some elements seem to have been abandoned in teaching: writing out of SOT's? What's that? The creativity contest was in full swing. Writing car sales statistics with your finger on a dirty windshield! Measuring snowfall with a yardstick while you froze your butt off and risked hypothermia! How clever!
But the backlash has begun. My 19 year old god-daughter recently complained about a chipper reporter standing in the hurricane with disco-earrings flapping in the wind. Reporters standing in flood water at the risk of electrocution are being mocked. 'Journalists' who believe that reporting constitutes regurgitating spoon-fed 'company line' information or sharing what has been conveniently 'revealed' to them are being dismissed by viewers.
The glamour is reverting back to intellect. The prestige: to being respected for putting yourself on the line to get to the truth. The standup: either to show or explain something or to share frank, accurate information without a whoopee cushion or fabricated drama. The anchor banter and occasional hijinx: not a necessity, but unleashed spontaneity - in a natural and unforced moment.
So a freaky looping pattern: yep.
Cycling from the somberness of Viet Nam to the crazy, sometimes Fellini-like journalistic backlash. Then back around to the shock and tragedy of 9/11...followed by an abandoning or snubbing of some video reporting principles...and an influx of forced cleverness and creativity.
And now: we seem to be on our way back - thankfully - to acknowledging and embracing the real journalists and real journalism. I honestly believe that a well-constructed 1:30 package can pull us in like a good Scorsese movie. And yes - there have been some changes. As long as the reporting is solid we'll forgive the occasional shaky but important shot or compromised lighting or edit challenge.
The salaries: calmed down to offensively lower figures for the majority. But as I shared in my first column: if it’s in your blood, there's no turning back.
04/2011 - Harnessing your Natural Speaking Voice
Home Base
For all of us who believe we "recognize someone's voice" - the reason for this is that each of us speaks in a unique fluctuation of pitch. It's the rolling incantation of voice and speech sounds that carries our message to a listener's ear. If you picture the five lines on which music is written, somewhere around the middle is a black dot - or note - that signifies your personal "Home Base." This is your own "neutral pitch." It's the place from which you most often start when you speak.
When we begin to speak we essentially have three choices: We can start from Home Base or from a spot that is slightly higher or slightly lower. The reality is that the rise and fall in pitch of our personal speaking voices doesn't travel that far from "Home."
The majority of my clients who need voice work have invariably lost their Home Base in an effort to project their voice, sound urgent, or when they try, artificially, to make their information sound interesting. Whether you're anchoring, tracking or doing a standup, the trick is to figure out or re-discover your Home Base and then roll out your speaking from there. This concept is great for speakers who become incrementally higher without realizing it and for speakers who end up talking from their neck and face in and effort to project and speak with authority.
For many new or semi-seasoned speaking journalists it's important to know your Home Base and to easily and naturally tap into it. The presentation of your journalism is a litany of starting, stopping, starting, stopping - you have infinite opportunities to restart from your base or to lose your way. With a nod to Thomas Wolfe, these folks often find they can't go home again.
Two common ways to find your Home Base:
A) When you're listening to someone and you hear yourself saying "OK" or "got it" out of politeness, the long "A" in OK or the "ah" in "got" should be pretty close to your Home Base. This is because you've phonated without worrying about how you'll sound - you're not carrying a message (i.e. information or a sentence) - and you're essentially making a neutral, non-semantic utterance.
B) If you're tracking or doing a standup try doing a 3-2-1 countdown. Your goal is to hit your Home Base starting from "3" so you now have two opportunities to make an honest mistake. The idea is to feel the 3 - relax into your phonation as you say it - and let your 2 and 1 ever so slightly fall into a 1-1-1 phonation that feels very comfortable, neutral, and sounds pleasant. If you believe your 3 has pretty much nailed your Home Base then the 2 and 1 will serve to reinforce it.
Always remember that it's important to phonate from your stomach. Your countdown can be done in one continuous stomach-pulling-in flow. Or if you're trying to improve your breathing and resonance (trying to take your voice out of your face and neck and more into a torso rumble) try doing your 3-2-1 in a series of 3 stomach pumps in. Bingo! Who knew you'd learn to belly dance as a bonus?
Common Pitfalls
Once you have the feel of the 1 in your countdown you are ready to start speaking. Be careful not to do a stupendous 3-2-1 and then default right back to your old voice as you start speaking! It's a common mistake but if you record your practice you'll hear it.
Remember: the idea is not to flatten your voice but rather to learn to start speaking from the natural, comfortable pitch which is most likely the spot you're in when you're not worrying about how you sound!
For all of us who believe we "recognize someone's voice" - the reason for this is that each of us speaks in a unique fluctuation of pitch. It's the rolling incantation of voice and speech sounds that carries our message to a listener's ear. If you picture the five lines on which music is written, somewhere around the middle is a black dot - or note - that signifies your personal "Home Base." This is your own "neutral pitch." It's the place from which you most often start when you speak.
When we begin to speak we essentially have three choices: We can start from Home Base or from a spot that is slightly higher or slightly lower. The reality is that the rise and fall in pitch of our personal speaking voices doesn't travel that far from "Home."
The majority of my clients who need voice work have invariably lost their Home Base in an effort to project their voice, sound urgent, or when they try, artificially, to make their information sound interesting. Whether you're anchoring, tracking or doing a standup, the trick is to figure out or re-discover your Home Base and then roll out your speaking from there. This concept is great for speakers who become incrementally higher without realizing it and for speakers who end up talking from their neck and face in and effort to project and speak with authority.
For many new or semi-seasoned speaking journalists it's important to know your Home Base and to easily and naturally tap into it. The presentation of your journalism is a litany of starting, stopping, starting, stopping - you have infinite opportunities to restart from your base or to lose your way. With a nod to Thomas Wolfe, these folks often find they can't go home again.
Two common ways to find your Home Base:
A) When you're listening to someone and you hear yourself saying "OK" or "got it" out of politeness, the long "A" in OK or the "ah" in "got" should be pretty close to your Home Base. This is because you've phonated without worrying about how you'll sound - you're not carrying a message (i.e. information or a sentence) - and you're essentially making a neutral, non-semantic utterance.
B) If you're tracking or doing a standup try doing a 3-2-1 countdown. Your goal is to hit your Home Base starting from "3" so you now have two opportunities to make an honest mistake. The idea is to feel the 3 - relax into your phonation as you say it - and let your 2 and 1 ever so slightly fall into a 1-1-1 phonation that feels very comfortable, neutral, and sounds pleasant. If you believe your 3 has pretty much nailed your Home Base then the 2 and 1 will serve to reinforce it.
Always remember that it's important to phonate from your stomach. Your countdown can be done in one continuous stomach-pulling-in flow. Or if you're trying to improve your breathing and resonance (trying to take your voice out of your face and neck and more into a torso rumble) try doing your 3-2-1 in a series of 3 stomach pumps in. Bingo! Who knew you'd learn to belly dance as a bonus?
Common Pitfalls
Once you have the feel of the 1 in your countdown you are ready to start speaking. Be careful not to do a stupendous 3-2-1 and then default right back to your old voice as you start speaking! It's a common mistake but if you record your practice you'll hear it.
Remember: the idea is not to flatten your voice but rather to learn to start speaking from the natural, comfortable pitch which is most likely the spot you're in when you're not worrying about how you sound!
01/2011 - On-Air Flubs: Don't Ignore Them.
The other day I was paying bills. A local news station had reached the C Block: "Around the World." I found myself thinking, "Hmmm, they must've lost time
somewhere, the anchor is really speeding along..."
Television news brought sitting people, standing people (anchors and reporters) natural sound, sound bites and (hopefully) significant video into our lives. The intention, in part, was to provide stronger multi-media news than newspapers and radio. Many people soon preferred getting their news from a warm-blooded, talking human. I'm sure there are scores of reasons for this, including one of perhaps feeling less spooked by some of the more serious stories.
As for me, I often put on my local news while I'm doing something else in the same room. If I hear something that compels me to look up (ie -watch some video) I'll do so or make a mental note to scroll backwards when I can find my remote.
The other day I was paying bills. A local news station had reached the C Block: Around the World. I found myself thinking, "Hmmm, they must've lost time somewhere, the anchor is really speeding along!" My brain was jogging to keep up.
Then I heard: "Due to increased violence Dutch law enforcement plans to implement serious restrictions on popular marijuana cases". I'm not well-versed on the Dutch legal system, but I had a "huh?" moment and looked up hoping to see video or a still shot, which would help me better understand this one-liner news item.
The anchor had a "poker look" on his face; there was nothing else to see and he was already into the next Around the World story. It struck me that he either misread the word "cafes" as "cases" or perhaps there was a typo in the prompter. Either way I was much sadder for us than I was for the café frequenters.
Either Chris, an anchor I do like, was tearing along and was totally disconnected to what he said or maybe he didn't have prior knowledge of the story and trusted a typo, and/or someone was asleep at the switch and didn't click into his IFB to advise him that he needed to correct the noun. Even worse, and this is my fear, someone in the newsroom caught it and a decision was made not to clarify the erroneous information for the viewers.
As we speak- so does the anchor
If you listen to a random conversation we stutter, we stumble, we correct inadvertently mispronounced sounds and words. Sometimes we stop and clarify or repeat a word, a name, a phrase, all to assure that our listener easily "got" what we said.
As long as an anchor isn't gripped by a tendency to misspeak (and this can come from a multitude of reasons) an occasional flub is completely fine and normal. A tripped-up or misspeaking anchor just needs to do what the rest of us do - correct the word or information in whatever manner suits his/her personality and personal preference and move on.
When things don't go perfectly, or when they go wrong, it is an anchor's aplomb and ease with the medium that serves as a great measure of his/her abilities.
As a good anchor you will comfortably correct yourself. You may couch it as, "that's ___". Depending on the mistake and the nature of the story you may choose to correct it more carefully" "Let me assure you've gotten this correctly, that's ___". If the story is light, sometimes a little look may replace words as you correct what was screwed up."
Frankly, one of my personal frustrations is seeing terrific, professional, comfortably executed catches or corrections and having to tell a client "Geez that was great, you did that so well. I'd love to put that on your demo reel to show management how artfully you handle your job but if it's on your reel they may think you had nothing to show them that doesn't have you misspeaking."
And so these flubs are rarely on reels. I guess there's always the chance that one may occur during an audition and you can show your chops there.
Getting back to the "oral journalism" Amsterdam glitch - the news program returned after commercials for the next block. There was no clarification or correction offered. I checked on it after. It WAS cafes and not cases. Huge difference. I much rather would've preferred to hear "A few minutes ago we shared a story about gang violence in Amsterdam. We'd like to clarify that…"
Now THAT'S good anchoring!
Underwriters
An underwriter of the Press Club's Awards for Journalism ceremony and our Foundation's annual Holiday Party for charity,
Con Edison Inc. has been supplying the energy that powers New York for more than 180 years.
Click to learn more.
Advertisement
Meet a Member
Melanie Gray
Editorial Development Director, The Real Deal
Editorial Development Director, The Real Deal
Mel's challenge is cutting through the hype, hyperbole and yes, hucksterism, of New York City's hyperactive real estate beat. More in Meet a Member.
Member News
Glenn Schuck
1010 WINS
1010 WINS
Former NY Press Club president honored by Seton Hall's WSOU-FM. More in Member News.