I get that question a lot. Usually, people seem disappointed when I answer. Most people seem to think that if you work in a television station, you must be on TV. This, obviously, isn’t true. For every personality you see on your favorite channel, there are at least six or seven — sometimes as many as ten to twelve or more — that you never see, working behind the scenes in various capacities, keeping the ship going, so that the personality can shine in the spotlight.

But don’t get me wrong: I’m not bitter. I used to be a reporter. I didn’t like it, and I knew it wasn’t what I ultimately wanted to do when I took the job. But, it was the fulltime job that happened to be available at the time, so that’s the job I took. I was a good reporter, if I do say so myself, because I knew how to tell stories. But news isn’t the “glamourous” business many believe it is. It’s tough work. Not nearly as tough as digging ditches, but it’s about as much fun on a bad day.

“Yeah, yeah,” you say. “But what do you do at the television station?”

If you’ve ever seen a movie trailer, you pretty much have a good idea of the kind of work I do. Except that in my case, since I work at the local television level, most of what I do promotes the local newscast.

I can best explain what I do and how I do it by first showing you how a reporter would tackle the same story I’m trying to promote.

What reporters are supposed to do, basically, is to pack as much information into as little time as possible. Sound strange? Well, look at it this way: a news producer — the one who decides which stories will be covered and in which order — must also decide how much time to devote to each individual story. Most stories are about twenty seconds to a minute in length, depending on whether or not a soundbite is included. When a reporter pitches to a pre-recorded report, called a “package,” the length will vary greatly. Packages can bring the total time of a story up to two minutes, and occasionally longer. But that’s still not a lot of time when you have a lot of facts to deal with.

For every story, the reporter and producer have to decide how much time will be devoted to that topic. Those basic journalistic questions, the who, what, when, where, why and how all must be answered — or at least should be — whether the reporter has thirty seconds or three minutes. Of course a three-minute story should contain much much more. But no matter how much time they get, their story should be full of facts, thus the part about cramming as much information into as little time as possible.

I pretty much do the opposite: as a promotion producer, I try to get as much time as I can over the course of the evening, and I use that time to tell you as little as I can about the story. Hopefully, I tell you just enough that you will stay up after prime time to see the rest.

I want as many opportunities to sell you on a story because I know you won’t see them all to begin with. You hate commercial breaks, so you don’t watch them. If you only see two or three commercial breaks in their entirety in a single evening — that means that you don’t pick up the remote and see what else is on for those two minutes — then I’m hoping I’ll have a promo in at least one of those breaks. I’d like to have a promo in all of them if I can, because I know that I have a better chance of getting you to watch if I can “remind” you more than one time in an evening.

So why not just tell you everything I know? Good question. I can’t, for three reasons. First, I don’t always know much more than I write in my scripts. In many cases, I’m writing a promo for a story that’s still being shot. I know what the reporter is planning to do, but not always every element he’ll have. In some cases, naturally, the original promo has to be changed before it can air to accomodate information we weren’t expecting. Rest assured, I’m not making anything up: I do run the finished scripts by a news producer — the same one who’s in contact with the reporter and who knows the story — before I put anything on the air. It’s just that my deadline to get the spots produced is tight, and falls much earlier than the reporter’s deadline. My first spot of the night might hit as early as 7:30pm. The reporter won’t have his work on the air until 11pm.

The second reason I can’t just tell you everything up front is because once you know everything about a story, there’s no real point in staying up late to see the same information again. I’m not trying to deceive…I’m trying to get you to watch my newscast.

You hate that. I know you do. I don’t mean to annoy you while you’re trying to watch your favorite show. But my job is to make you keep watching, even when “CSI” or “ER,” or whatever your favorite show happens to be, is over. Because you’re holding that remote control, your gateway to hundreds of channels that didn’t exist a few years back, I’m a necessary evil.

The third reason is the fact that I often don’t have time to get the “whole” story out there if I did know everything about it. in some cases, I’m dealing with only an ID, a five-second promo whose main goal is to identify the station’s call letters, channel number and city of origin. In the old days, you’d see a giant image of the station’s logo and you’d hear an announcer say, “You’re watching WXXX, Channel 2 in Anytown, USA.” Nowadays, we show that information on the screen visually and tease a story in that night’s news or tease a local program.

So here’s how it works: let’s suppose that there’s a fire. Let’s say that the fire began when a cat started chewing on an electrical cord. The family makes it out alive and firefighters arrive in time to save the home. There is fire damage, but not a lot. It could have been worse.

The reporter will likely be live in front of the house in the late news (assuming there’s not more dramatic news that night) and will try his best to interview the family members. Having been told by the firefighters that they think the cat started it, he’ll try to show the cat. He’ll tell you who in the household first smelled smoke, how they all got out, and how soon firefighters (never call them “firemen”) arrived on the scene. If the family is willing, you might see footage from inside the house where the fire began. A firefighter might talk about how often pets cause fires. If it is unusual (and I suspect it’s quite unusual), he might give a good soundbite like, “I’ve been fighting fires for twenty years and I’ve never seen that happen.” The reporter will likely end with a suggestion or two for what homeowners can do to avoid having this happen to them. Or, he may end his report with the happy news that the cat was uninjured and that, all things considered, everyone feels pretty lucky.

The promotion producer will look at that story and immediately fall in love with that cat…not because we’re glad anyone’s home caught fire, but because of the unusual way it happened. We’re not heartless. We’re glad that if a fire had to happen, everyone made it out safely and the fire caused minimal damage. Contrary to what you may think, we don’t sit around waiting for bad things to happen to good people. But that cat is too good to pass up. We’ll probably air ID’s throughout prime time that say something like this:

“A house fire blamed on the family cat! How it happened, tonight at eleven.”

In longer spots, (most stations will run at least one :10, :15 or :30 in prime time), we’ll give you a few more details, but not many. If the reporter does get that soundbite with the firefighter, and he can feed it back to us in time, we’ll definitely put that on the air!

A longer spot might go something like this:

“A family watches firefighters try to put out a blaze at their home…and the biggest surprise is how it started: (Insert Soundbite here). What firefighters are telling us, tonight at eleven.”

Hopefully, that’s enough to make someone watch. “How did it start?” That’s the question I want you to ask. That’s the question I hope will make you want to watch the news. These are not the greatest examples; they wouldn’t win any writing awards. I just wanted to make up an example that would illustrate my point.

That’s pretty much what I do. There are other kinds of spots, of course, promoting many things other than that night’s newscast. But I hope this gives you at least a hint of what it is I do at the television station.

An interesting article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch gives television news viewers their chance to have their say about why they’re tired of television news.

I provide you with the top ten pet peeves viewers there give, and I throw in my perspective:

1. Self-Promotion - You tune in for your late news and you see a segment about what happened on “Survivor” that night. “This isn’t news,” you say as you reach for the remote. The trouble is, many people don’t reach for the remote. They watch. CBS, which has had trouble getting their morning news program to catch on from day one, was among the first to find ratings success by bringing on the castaway voted off “Survivor” the night before. Is it news? No. Do viewers respond to it? Unfortunately, yes.

2. News “lite” - Those extended long-form packages about the safety of playground equipment, what to do if you’re trapped in a car that goes into a river, which foods make you lose the most weight are typically done during the four sweeps months because that’s the time television stations really want to attract viewers. More viewers = more advertising revenue. Some of these stories test very well, and that’s the main reason they’re there. Some of them, of course, are ridiculous.

3. Too Little Meat - This is one of those gripes that I call at least partially-bogus. Viewers don’t necessarily want a lot of detail on everything…just those things they’re interested in. If viewers were presented with longform reports (a la “60 Minutes”) on stories in their own neighborhood, but the stories themselves were of no interest to them as individuals, the gripe would be that the newscast gets bogged down in too many details. The fact is, most people who are interested in routinely in-depth reporting turn to the newspaper. After all, they have the space for that level of detail. A thirty-minute newscast doesn’t.

4. Bragging - Of course this isn’t news. It’s branding…image advertising. Every station does it. That doesn’t make it right, but then again, each station is competing for your attention with every other station in townplus hundreds of cable and satellite channels. Stations want to set themselves apart.

5. Teases - My uncle gets upset about weather teases in particular: “Will it rain tomorrow morning? I’ll have your forecast coming up.” Those words just set him off. “Why don’t they just tell me then so that I can go to bed?” Uncle, you just answered your own question.

6. Pointless Live Shots - Television stations employ research firms and consultants to survey people in the audience. One of the things that routinely comes back is that viewers like live reports. Unfortunately, this motivates some stations to present live reports just for the sake of being live. There are two reasons for a live report: first, the live report sends a message to the viewer, subliminally, that the reporter hasn’t just been sitting around in the newsroom playing Solitaire all night: they’ve actually been out in the field where the news is. Second, a live report is supposed to show you something you couldn’t have gotten by having the reporter in the studio with the anchors. If, for example, a reporter is at the scene of an accident that had traffic blocked for hours but is now cleared, he should do what’s called a “walk-and-talk,” which basically means that he should show you the skid marks, he should show you where the car left the road, he should show you how police think it could have been avoided. That, at least, gives him a purpose in standing there. Otherwise, it is pretty pointless for him to be there. Many reporters, unfortunately, haven’t gotten this point.

7. Fake Banter - Fake banter is never good. But contrary to what some entertainment shows might like for you to believe, not every anchor team secretly hates each other. There are quite a few teams out there that are friends, and like each other’s company. I do agree, though, that you can tell when that’s the case. When it isn’t, contrived chit-chat can be quite painful.

8. Bad News - The old “if it bleeds, it leads” thing. It’s funny…people love to complain about that. One of my early “Saturday Six” questions asked whether you’d subscribe to a paper that had only good news. Most people said they wouldn’t. Local journalists have a difficult balancing act on their hands: they want to fit as much good news as they can, but at thesame time, it’s often the bad news that has a greater impact on their viewers: a robbery, for example, could affect viewers if the gunman is still believed to be in the area. The aforementioned car accident could affect local viewers if it looks like the area won’t be completely cleared by their morning commute. The local civic group’s bake sale, while sweet, doesn’t necessarily have a big impact until the new community center it raised money for actually opens for the first time.

9. Too Many Weather Warnings - So you don’t like to be told about storms that are 40 miles away. Sure. I understand that. You want to watch your “Days of Our Lives” without interruption. “CSI: Miami” was about to name the killer, now I’m looking at a weatherman standing there talking about tornadoes that may or may not touch down. Trump was about to say “You’re Fired,” and I’m suddenly missing it for a live report about hail damage. What most people fail to realize as they sit in complete tunnelvision is that the severe weather coverage is a big part of a station’s commitment to its community…something they are required to do to keep their license. Another thing most people fail to realize is that when severe weather is in the area — even forty miles away — the storm systems are usually moving, and quite often, moving in their direction.

10. Too Few Weather Warnings - This one strikes me as particularly funny, because I can imagine many of the people complaining about item #9 saying this when those storms they’ve demanded that the station stop hyping up actually do move into their neighborhood.

No one ever said that television news was perfect, certainly not I. But at the same time, television news is, in part, a reflection of what viewers tell us they want. Sometimes when those tastes change, it takes us a while to react to them. Sometimes, in the race to do the best job that we can do, we forget to stop and think about the reason they want certain things (like the example involving live shots above).

If it’s maddening for you, the viewer, that those of us in the news business can’t seem to get it right, I’d hope you would consider for a moment how maddening it is for us to try desperately to be as much as we can be to our audience, knowing it’s a losing battle, because no two people agree on everything when it comes to what makes a good newscast.

I suppose that NBC’s “Meet The Press” isn’t part of the “liberal media.” Tim Russert, leading a discussion about the declaration of War on Iraq, aired quotes from two prominent Democrats who were in support (at the time) of war.

The first was from an October, 2002 speech by Hillary Clinton:

“It’s clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological, chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, affects American security. This much is undisputed.”

The second was from an October 9, 2002, speech by John Kerry:

“Mr. President, when I vote to give the president of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein, because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat and a grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region.”

Ultra-Liberals will tell you that Clinton and Kerry were mislead by President Bush and his “flawed facts.” They might suggest that those lawmakers should have been able to depend on our intelligence information without having to question what that data really showed. They might scream that those Democratic lawmakers were simply patsies in an evil Republican plot.

At the same time, Michael Moore, in his propaganda film, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” slams lawmakers who he claims never bothered to check the facts about the Patriot Act before signing it into law. After having the need for tougher homeland security explained to them, they were so eager to get the Patriot Act passed, it is inferred, that they didn’t bother to read it in its entirety. One of the well-publicized clips from the film has Moore driving around in what appears to be an ice cream truck reading exerpts of the Patriot Act over loudspeakers so that the lawmakers can actually hear what they voted into law.

So which is it? Do our lawmakers have any responsibility in what goes on, or are they culpable right along with the man in the White House, who can’t do a great deal without Congressional support to begin with? Should they be expected to listen to governmental advisors for the information they need in their decision-making process, or should they each do their own research to find the truth of every matter before them? Where, exactly, does the finger-pointing begin…and where does it end?

Speaking of the man in the White House, Russert also aired a tape of Bill Clinton from 1998 in which he referred to the critical need for weapons inspections in Iraq to confirm the presence of (hold onto your seat!) “weapons of mass destruction:”

“What if [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost his will–its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.”

Contrary to popular opinion, neither the belief that Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction, nor the idea of him using them against the United States, appeared out of thin air on the day of George W. Bush’s inauguration. If we were truly wrong on both counts, it would seem we’ve been wrong for more than four years.

I’d be happy to drop the bickering over which party was wrong when if we could then entertain a level-headed debate about what both parties are doing to make sure no more “mistakes” occur in the next four years!

Larry of “Larry’s Blog” left me with a grammatical challenge. He asked what words like “bow,” which have two different pronunciations as well as meanings with the same spelling, are called.

A homophone is a set of words that are pronounced the same but have different meanings. “To,” “too,” and “two” are all pronounced the same way, but each spelling carries a separate meaning.

After a little research, the best explanation I’ve found is that words like “minute,” which have different pronunciations (like “MY-NUTE” or “MIN-IT”) depending on how they’re used at the time, are called homographs.

Both homophones and homographs belong to a bigger category of words known as homonyms.

Ain’t grammar fun?

We’re up and running again for another set of questions…and they’re actually posted on time this week! Don’t forget to leave a link to your journal in the comments. Either answer the questions here or put the answers in an entry on your journal…but the link you leave here gives everyone who plays a chance to visit your journal! Enjoy!

1. What annoys you more: a long line in a bank, a movie theater, a restaurant or a grocery checkout line?

6. READER’S CHOICE QUESTION #9 from Dymphna: Who kissed you first?

Have you submitted your reader’s choice question, yet? If you haven’t, follow this link and play that week’s edition of the “Saturday Six” as well. You can submit your own question and see it asked to the masses in an upcoming edition.

My answers:
1. Sometimes I trip myself up with my own questions. I was already set to answer “restaurant,” but then I reconsidered. Actually, a long line at a restaurant (to me at least) means that the food must be pretty good. I HATE standing in line at checkout counters…especially in those stores with 50 registers up front that insist on keeping no more than four open at any one time.

2. OOPS! Originally I said Ben Franklin, completely forgetting that he’s already on our currency, on the $100 bill, to be exact. Thanks to Sekirley for reminding me of my mistake. I guess it has been a while since I’ve seen a $100 in person! So the person who came in second now becomes my choice: Thomas Edison.

6. I’ll be devious here…I’m sure the first person to kiss me…moments after I was born…was my mother! HA!

Remember the story about illegal aliens who were arrested after it was learned that they were working janitorial jobs at Wal*Mart stores?

CBS News reports that nine of them are suing the retailing giant, accusing it of discrimination. Apparently, they feel that they were payed less and given fewer benefits because they are Mexicans, whereas Americans — who have a legal right to be here — seemed to get full salaries and benefits.

So let me get this straight: these people…who aren’t supposed to be here to begin with…who broke the law to sneak into this country…and took jobs that Americans could have held (whether they wanted them or not)…now somehow have the right make use of the legal system to sue over wages they never should have gotten to begin with??

Something’s amiss here.

If Wal*Mart did intentionally pay them less, then Wal*Mart should have to pay up. There is no excuse for discrimination. But since the employees weren’t legally-entitled to be here in the first place, and most likely used at least some deception to make it appear that they were, I can’t see how they’re entitled to another dime.

If I was in charge, I’d take any back pay Wal*Mart owes and distribute it to the taxpayers who could end up paying for the legal battle.

Better yet, distribute the back wages to Wal*Mart shoppers. At least they have a legal right to walk in the place!

I saw a news report the other night about several of the American companies who have outsourced jobs to India. Apparently, they are now having problems. It seems that the job market there is so hot, most employees stay for an average of only six months. They’re also discovering (get ready for this!) that there are often communication problems.

Cry me a river.

I’m reminded of a line from the movie, “My Fair Lady:”

If you can’t appreciate what you’ve got, you’d better get what you can appreciate.

We have American workers who have a vested interest in seeing their companies succeed because they’re part of their communities. And we have these Indian workers who must be trained to speak English so that they can “fool” the rest of us. (During my recent experience with PC problems, I spoke to a few such workers. I wasn’t fooled, despite the “American” names.)

The companies don’t want to pay American workers because minimum wage is too high. So they go to India where the labor is cheap…only to discover that there is so much demand for workers from more moronic companies trying to save a few dollars an hour, they can’t keep their new cheap employees.

That reminds me of another famous line:

You get what you pay for.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I think companies who outsource their jobs overseas to save a few bucks should be hit with a few federal penalties:

First, they should face additional taxes equal to the amount of money they’re saving by hiring workers we can’t understand when we call. That money would go into a fund used to create new jobs here at home.

Second, they should be required to increase the salaries of their remaining American workers by the same percentage they’re “saving” by going overseas.

Third, they should be required to increase the pensions of American employees they replace with overseas workers. Again, the amount of the increase should be equal to percentage of “savings” they’re getting from the overseas workers.

Of course, if I was running things, these companies could easily avoid all of this…by simply keeping their jobs here…in the same country where their executives wave their flags each Fourth of July whenever a camera is anywhere in sight.

I was always involved in my high school newspaper. It wasn’t really part of my wanting to work in television, because I knew even then that I did not want to be a reporter. I just liked working on the paper…it certainly beat sports!

Anyway, at some point along the way, I participated in a summer journalism workshop at USC. (That’s the University of South Carolina, not Southern California…there’s more than one USC in the world, you know!)

Copyediting, which is basically editing stories and headlines for grammatical problems and spelling errors, was something I enjoyed for reasons that I still can’t completely explain. For some reason, one of the tips we were given stuck a little harder than most of the others, and today, it’s one of my biggest pet peeves.

I made reference to it during the most recent edition of the “Saturday Six.” It’s the phrase, “due to.” Many people use it incorrectly. In fact, it’s used incorrectly so often that no one knows when they’re supposed to use it. So, as part of my on-going mission to educate the masses in the dying art of proper English, I’ll give a quick explanation.

Be patient. This is a complicated one.

“Due to,” when used to mean “because of,” is an adverbial phrase.

So you’re already complaining, right? “What the hell is an adverb?” An adverb modifies a verb. An adjective modifies a noun:

The boy chose the large cookie.
He ate the cookie eagerly.

In the first sentence, “large” modifies the noun “cookie,” so “large” is an adjective. In the second sentence, “eagerly” modifies “ate,” a verb, so “eagerly” is an adverb. Simple, right?

Okay…if you’re going to use “due to” to mean “because of,” it must be an adverbial phrase, and it requires a verb like “is.”

Here is an example:

The absence IS DUE TO illness.

What you usually hear or see is something like this:

DUE TO illness, he is not in the office today.

That one is wrong. Part of the problem comes from that little rule those angry schoolmarms jammed into our heads…that rule about never starting a sentence with the word “because.” Actually, you can legitimately begin a sentence with the word “because” if it is a complete sentence. Consider:

HER: You can’t have any more cookies.
HIM: Why?
HER: Because I said so.

“Because I said so” is not a complete sentence…it’s a fragment. (For the more brilliant out there, it’s actually a dependent clause, but I am digressing.)

But here’s a perfectly good sentence that begins with “because:”

BECAUSE the boy was told he couldn’t have any more cookies, he immediately began to pout.

You can lop off that entire dependent clause, “Because the boy was told he couldn’t have any more cookies,” and still have a perfectly good sentence: but that clause adds meaning to the sentence by explaining why he was pouting.

So back to my earlier example of an incorrect use of “due to:”

DUE TO illness, he is not in the office today.

It SHOULD be:

BECAUSE OF illness, he is not in the office today.

If you still can’t bring yourself to start a sentence with “because,” do it this way:

He is not in the office today BECAUSE OF illness.

Just never, never say:

He is not in the office today DUE TO illness.

For my next grammar number, I’ll do a rant on the word “myself.” I’m almost willing to bet you money that the last three times you’ve used that word, it’s been wrong!

(And to think that there were a few of you out there who actually missed me while I was gone!!)

Because of (and grammatically, it’s not “due to”) technical difficulties, the “Saturday Six” this week have been delayed. It’s a good thing in a way, because I needed the extra time to answer some of these!

The questions are especially interesting this week because I didn’t come up with ANY of them! That’s right, ALL SIX of this week’s questions came from past players of the “Saturday Six.”

Don’t forget to leave a link to your journal in the comments. Either answer the questions here or put the answers in an entry on your journal…but the link you leave here gives everyone who plays a chance to visit your journal! Enjoy!

1. READER’S CHOICE QUESTION #3 from Jeffcomedy: What’s your favorite way to relax?

2. READER’S CHOICE QUESTION #4 from Annalisa135: Where do you see yourself in 10 years?

3. READER’S CHOICE QUESTION #5 from Ondinemonet: If you could sit between any two celebrities on a transatlantic flight, who would it be and why?

4. READER’S CHOICE QUESTION #6 from Lucylouladybug: What are some of the occasional song lyrics or pieces of poetry that stream through your mind during the day?

5. READER’S CHOICE QUESTION #7 from Glopsblink: What is the funniest thing you’ve ever seen, read, heard of, done,….. whatever?

6. READER’S CHOICE QUESTION #8 from Olddog299: When you lost your virginity, was it a good or bad experience, overall?

MY ANSWERS:

1. Usually, watching an old movie will do the trick.

2. Talk about tough questions…I’m not sure where I see myself in five years. I’d like to think I’d be in upper management at a TV station somewhere…hopefully a top 30 market (which is a TV-Jargon way of saying a larger city)…making more money and owning a house somewhere. Kinda dull, I know…

3. Since Carly didn’t specify living or dead, I’d like to sit between Bob Hope and Jack Benny. I figure I’m going to be on an airplane that long, I’d like to be in good humor for a change.

4. Blame it on working in TV, but usually it’s not so much song lyrics or poetry that goes through my minds as much as TV Theme songs. The occasional pop song melody goes through my head as well. The most recent of them is “100 Years.”

5. That’s a tough question! I’m more in the subtle humor category. I have a co-worker with a wit so quick that I just stare at him sometimes wondering how he does it. Unfortunately most of the things I can think of that he’s said recently might force me to use a dreaded “masked obscenity,” so I won’t go there. One really funny thing happened to my parents about twenty-five years ago, when certain drive-thru restaurants, as we know them today, were still relatively new to certain parts of the country. They drove to the order menu and placed their order, were given a total and instructed to drive to the window. As they drove around, an old couple, obviously confused, went around the building and got to the window before they did…they basically cut into the line. The person at the window, not realizing the difference, quoted them the price, collected the money, and gave the couple my parents’ food. It was quite funny once everyone realized what happened. The couple is probably still amazed to this day that they can drive up to a random window, hand over a few dollars and get food THAT fast. It was just lucky for them my parents weren’t picking up food for a huge family!

6. I’m sure as many would agree…”coulda been better.”

There are still a few Reader’s Choice Questions that haven’t been asked. They will be, believe me.

I am amazed by the sheer number of people who genuinely believe that the media is out to control what they think.

They say that the the press wants you think a certain way, and that they’ll do anything to make sure that you do. I work in “the media,” and I’d like to give you the real truth: such thoughts are asinine.

Naturally, there are those separate entities within the “media” umbrella, Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken for example, who would love to have you believe everything they believe while selling their message as the complete truth.

But if we’re going to convict “the media,” rather than these extremists, then let’s look at the oft-forgotten truth in this life: When the media makes you feel a certain way, you are allowing those feelings to happen.

I wonder whether those who agree that the media should be stopped for trying to control your thoughts favor the eighteenth amendment to the Constitution.

“Which one is that, you ask?” Tsk, tsk, tsk. Fine. I’ll do what the media does: I’ll inform. The eighteenth amendment, class, created Prohibition. Responding to those people who felt that no good could possibly come from the consumption of alcohol, Congress banned its sale and transport. (Of course, for those who like to remain blissfully uninformed, I’ll intrude into your brain with one more fact, lest you worry: the twenty-first amendment DID repeal the eighteenth…so you’re free to imbibe.)

But the point is this: what was evil? Alcohol itself, or the way people used it and what they did to themselves and others because of that use? There are plenty of people who use alcohol responsibly…the majority of people, in fact. Alcohol is served in some churches rather than grape juice during religious ceremonies. Families toast in the new year with it. Studies show that certain forms of alcohol used in moderation, can be beneficial. As long as people use it wisely, it does no immediate damage to those around them.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the media, overall, doesn’t care what you think, so long as you keep coming back to the individual sources for your information. Time Magazine, for example, isn’t nearly as interested as you think about whether you also watch MSNBC, so long as you don’t stop reading Time. In fact, they probably WANT you to get as much information as you can, since both organizations are tied to other, similar news sources.

If you’re a Democrat, the majority of the media isn’t out to change that. Likewise, if you’re a Republican, the majority of the media isn’t covertly planning to convert you to “its” way of thinking. It reaches slightly beyond paranoia to think otherwise.

As a recent film has “proven,” if you only eat fast food for every meal, do not exercise, and ignore the advice of your doctor, you will (hang on to your seats!) get fat. You can’t legitimately blame the restaurant for serving the food; you did request it, after all. They did what you asked. You were the one who was irresponsible.

Media consumers who allow the media to shape what they think are being as irresponsible. Just as the media’s job is to question the officials they report about, it is the media consumer’s job to question those reports. It’s unfair, I know, because it often requires real thought: you should be able to be handed only the truth and nothing else so you don’t have to suffer through rationalization.

Life is unfair.

I was reminded of how quickly people are willing to let someone else do their thinking for them by an IM last evening from someone who began without even a hello. (I guess common courtesy is the first casualty of internet messaging.) She immediately attacked my view that we should have more years of Reagan’s “magic.”

I was puzzled. I didn’t recall saying that we should have more years of Reagan, since the combination of his Alzheimer’s and recent passing would seem to make that impossible, anyway. I did recall, however, suggesting that the magic he was able to conjure that allowed people of both political parties — some, not all — to think beyond the current problems and look toward the future for those all-too-few shining moments was something I’d like to see again. I didn’t say at the time that I felt that only a Republican was capable of such magic. I think Democrats are equally capable of it. My hope of feeling that spirit again didn’t automatically require that it come from a Republican. I suppose I must have thought people might read beyond partisanism in a single sentence. Silly me.

She told me where she got her information. It turns out that my Reagan tribute moved from the AOL People Connection main screen to the AOL News Community screen. (Doesn’t AOL let people know when they’re being featured anymore??)

AOL, in fairness, took a shortcut in summing up what I had to say there. They did it because they have an extremely limited amount of space to deal with for those headlines. I understand that. Their reason for putting anything there at all is to get you to click the link and read in full the comments and decide for yourself.

But this IMer didn’t bother to click the link AOL provided in order to read my “uplifting remembrance.” She took that headline, stopped there, and began her tirade. She failed to check her facts. She failed to take the extraordinarily taxing effort of clicking on a link to read the entire commentary. Yet she was the one to claim that the media is trying to control everything we do.

When people are “controlled” by the media, that’s why it happens: they let themselves be controlled out of laziness.

I wasn’t surprised, really. Along the way during our conversation, she made this remark:

“i love talking politics with republicans because history and facts are on my side, it makes it so easy,,,,, ” (sic)

Wow. Talk about letting someone control your thoughts!

On Friday afternoon, as I was chatting with a friend of mine from California, I was suddenly bombarded by several IM’s from people I’d never heard of. It seems that “Patrick’s Place” had been featured at the AOL People Connection main screen on Thursday and Friday for my tribute to Ronald Reagan. I have also learned that the tribute I wrote, apparently, was “inspiring,” according to AOL’s Journal Editors.

Apparently, it was enough to inspire a handful of people to leave comments in the journal or to drop me an Email, and most of them have been most pleasant and kind.

A few others have decided to go the more direct and immediate route by sending me an Instant Message. Usually, that’s a good thing. In a few cases, it wasn’t. Several began their “conversation” by saying:

THEM: ASL.

This means, to those of you who don’t do instant messaging, and who are thereby missing very little, “What is your age, sex (gender), and location?” I don’t do the “ASL” thing. I don’t give answers that easily. And you won’t get three separate pieces of information from me for three simple letters that tell me from the beginning that you aren’t willing to put any effort into the conversation, anyway.

But before answering, I clicked the “Buddy Info” window and requested the sender’s profile. There wasn’t one. Naturally.

Generally, I don’t talk to people who won’t build a profile. I have one. Many of them claim they read mine. Give me the same opportunity and I’ll chat. Otherwise, you’re not playing fairly, and I’d just as soon pass on the warm, verbose chat opportunity.

When one of them (finally) got the message that I wasn’t going to answer that question, she asked:

HER: do you have ne kids?

Ne kids? Hmm. Is that like pet rocks? I’ve heard of Bebe’s kids…but never “ne” kids. Oh, wait! Another sign of little effort being applied to conversation: “ne” is an online abbreviation for “any.” I’m sure the sender thinks that “N-E” is a clever abbreviation, but I don’t share that view. “Any” is a three-letter word. Do we need an abbreviation for that?

In fairly short order, I clicked the little red “x” to dismiss that window.

Another of the four actually had a profile. Sort of…

Her profile identified the sender as Jessica. But she told me her name was Morgan. She said that her sister, Jessica, put her name on Morgan’s profile. The sender’s user name contained the name “Jess.” I had to ask:

ME: So this is YOUR screen name?
HER: Yes.
ME: And your sister, Jessica, put HER name on YOUR profile?
HER: Yes.
ME: Isn’t it funny, then, that you’d complain about that when your screen name has JESS in it?A long pause.

HER: Oh. Sorry. This is HER screen name.

Yeah, sure. What’s the line Judge Judy uses from time to time? Something about not believing another thing someone says after she catches them in the first lie?

Another journaler wrote a piece recently about a young girl who was constantly IMing her. Eventually, she had to block this pest. I had a similar situation with someone who last IMed me with an odd question:

HER: A friend of mine likes to cut herself. What should I do?
ME: Cut herself?
HER: Yeah. She say it eases her pain.
ME: She CUTS HERSELF to EASE her pain?
HER: Yep.
ME: Well what do YOU think about that?
HER: Bad?
ME: You’re ASKING?
HER: I guess it is.(Pause)

HER: What should her friends do?
ME: She needs help.
HER: What can she do see her parents cant find out.
ME: Don’tyou think they should?

After a few more pointless exchanges, she informed me, as I suspected, that she was the “friend” who finds some unexplainable pleasure in cutting herself under the auspices of “easing pain.” I suggested politely that she should seek help from her doctor or a counselor. I wished her well. I can’t do more than that, and she won’t find anyone online who can.

Then there was the high schooler who told me he thought it was “hott” (yes, with two T’s!) that I had been featured. You know you have arrived when they start doubling random consonants to describe your achievement.

I’ve talked to many different kinds of people here on AOL through Instant Messages: male and female, old and young, black and white, military and civilian, within this country and outside of this country, religious, non-religious or somewhere in between; straight, gay, or somewhere in between; conservative, liberal or somewhere in between. I’m sure there are other labels I could come up with if I tried hard enough.

And with that diverse lineup of chat partners, it’s still not surprising that all of the pleasant conversations I’ve had with people had one thing in common: they were capable of clear, reasonable thinking were expressed themselves that way.

All you really have online is the text of the conversation: you don’t get to see what they look like (because even pictures aren’t necessarily of the person you’re talking to)…you don’t get to hear their voice…you don’t get to look at their body language…you don’t even get the courtesy of seeing their eyes glaze over as they start to zone out of the conversation. You don’t know that they have until you see that your exchange looks something like this:

ME: Did I lose you?
ME: Are you there?
ME: Hello???

So what does anyone really accomplish with this so-called “hip” rewriting of the English language with which the internet seems to be inundated:

THEM: Whuzup. I saw your profile up in herr and I wan to sez hi how u doin?

Most of them, I’m sure, don’t talk that way in person. But even if they do, it’s actually more effort to type that way because you have to encode the English language you were taught in school in order to transform it into gutter-speak. Why not spend an honest effort on what you say…not how you say it? Likewise for the people who like to use a completely RanDoM MetHoD oF CaPitAliZatIoN!

“Wit,” for example is its own word. It is NOT a “shortcut” for “With.” To substitute “wit” for “with” shows a writer’s lack of wit.

I am the first to admit that my strongest prejudice is against anyone who is willfully ignorant. Some of the people I’ve described may genuinely not know better. But is there nothing within them that makes them want to grow? On the other hand, in some ways, it takes a decent level of intelligence to rewrite English to look like you have no mastery of it. If only that talent could be better utilized.

I wish I had a funny line to end this one with. I just think it’s sad that so many people don’t realize that putting on a show to make themselves sound “cool” sometimes makes accomplishes the opposite. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

We can really be strange sometimes, can’t we?

Here are this week’s questions. Next week, ALL of the questions will be from you. If you HAVEN’T submitted yours, click the “E-mail” button to the left and mail it to me!

1. What color eyes do you find the most appealing?

2. What is your favorite thing to eat or drink on a cold, rainy day?

3. Name the last movie that made you laugh out loud and what you found so funny about it.

4. If you had the choice of having a custom telephone number, what would it be?

5. New technology currently allows parents who can afford it the opportunity to select the gender of their baby with an impressive rate of success. If such technology became the norm (and was affordable), would you choose or leave it up to fate?

6. READER’S CHOICE QUESTION #2 from Mumsy: You have just designed a new hybrid car that does not use gasoline or oil. What do you call it?

MY ANSWERS:
1. Blue. Specifically, light blue.

2. Hot chocolate.

3. The last movie I remember laughing out loud at was one in my DVD collection: “Manhattan Murder Mystery.” I’m not a big Woody Allen fan…this one is the only movie of his that I own so far, but there are a lot of great, subtle lines. In one scene (I think this is the one I laughed at), Woody and Diane Keaton spot a woman they thought was dead. She looks at him and says, “You’re white as a sheet.” His response, “I know! All the blood rushed to my brother.”

4. Isn’t it convenient that the name “Patrick” is seven letters long?

5. If money weren’t an issue, I would definitely want to have a say.

6. If I designed a car that even starts up, I’d call it a “miracle.” But seriously, folks…I think I’d name it the “Genesis,” because I hope it would be the beginning of a new trend.

Remember, next week, all of the questions have been written by folks like you who have played before. And there are some interesting questions in store for you!!

John Scalzi’s Weekend Assignment is about a subject I could probably do an entire journal on:

Weekend Assignment #9: Post a picture of one (or more) of your pets and entertain us all with tales of animal fun.

Last summer I adopted a dog from a local animal shelter. She was about three years old, the vets guessed, and had two four-month-old puppies with her. The puppies looked like little furballs…very cute. They were all terrified.

No one at an animal shelter knows for sure what happened to the dogs they try to place in new homes. And for this dog, that was no different. She was found wandering the streets with her two puppies, desperately searching for food and water. She was probably abused at some point along the way because she was afraid of everyone — even me — when I first got her.

As is often the case in an animal shelter, the two puppies were quickly adopted. The adult dog sat. And waited. Alone. Scared.

I saw her picture in a newspaper ad the shelter had run, and I did what no would-be animal owner should do: I fell in love with the picture. It’s generally a bad idea. You have to look beyond the dog’s appearance and consider the breed, the animal’s individual quirks, health problems, etc. But I saw her picture and I was hooked. I met her in person, with my cocker spaniel in tow. He liked her from the start, but he’s an “in your face” kind of dog, and she wasn’t quite ready for that, so she snapped at him a few times. The people from the shelter assured me that she was merely defining boundaries to him and that this would pass. It did. (Who says dogs can’t think!)

After taking time to adjust to a new home, a new playmate and a new owner, it didn’t take her long to realize she was here to stay. She began to come out of her shell, and she was quick to claim an end of the couch. She’s one of the most loving dogs I’ve ever owned. She’s perfectly content to just sit beside you. She doesn’t demand a lot of attention, but each moment you spend with her is met with what appears to be pure appreciation. (I’d heard that shelter dogs SHOW you that they appreciate what you do for them because they know how bad things can get when they have no one to take care of them…it’s true.)

What I like most about her is her smile. Not all dogs can completely pull off a smile. She can.

And just so that I don’t get accused of playing favorites…since I do have to live with these two, here is a little equal time for my cocker spaniel, who wishes to remind me that he can also be cute when he isn’t getting into trouble:

This afternoon, I was alerted to a new comment to my earlier tribute to Ronald Reagan left by Albert from “Albert’s World of Artsy Fun.” The comment, I thought, should be discussed because it brings up an interesting phenomenon of politics when a respected figure of either side dies. It was too important to leave buried in a comment section that many people might otherwise miss.

First, here’s what he said, in full:

“I’m sorry, but I have to say it, Patrick: it was NOT a new morning in America for all those who died of AIDS while Reagan was president. Think of what it would have been like for you if you were in your twenties during those years, and Reagan was president, ACTIVELY BLOCKING funding for AIDS research and education while gay men all around you became infected and died horrible deaths.

I am sickened by how easily people can ignore some things that happened so recently… Albert”

This post surely represents the opinions of many people, both liberal and conservative, who have had to deal with the AIDS crisis in a personal way. I understand the point and I appreciate it.

But there’s a problem here.

This point of view suffers from a huge leap of faith. It assumes, since I pay tribute to a popular president, that I must automatically do one of the following:

1) Agree with everything he ever did or said.

2) Wish to sweep everything bad under the rug.

I do neither. His last comment, about people who “choose to ignore” recent events might be insulting if it weren’t so weighted down by obvious partisanism.

If Albert, and those who share his views, can’t imagine how I could honor a man like Ronald Reagan who failed to fund AIDS research and education to a reasonable level, I am equally at a loss to understand why they must assume that I oppose these things. I realize that there are conservatives — the more extreme of them — who believe that all homosexuals are going directly to Hell without the hopes of passing “Go” for that last $200. I don’t share this opinion, either. Does that mean that I’m not a Christian now? God and I might have something to say about that point of view…I’ll let Him deal with you first.

With all due respect to Albert and others who agree with him on this point, the motive behind my tribute was not to say that everything Reagan did was perfect. I am quite confidant that you won’t find any reference to the former president as “Saint Reagan,” a name certain liberal bloggers are parading to make their incendiary points. During the Reagan years, there were things that could have been done better. There are things in every presidency that could have been done better. There always have been, and most likely always will be.

I was speaking to the general hope that America felt from both sides of the political spectrum as experienced by this humble writer. I realize that there were groups with their own concerns who were not addressed…even ignored. I make no attempt to sweep them under the rug, or even to say that their agendas weren’t noble or justified.

There is a great difference between “choosing to ignore” bad points and simply paying tribute to a leader who at least had some notable good points. I never said he made no mistakes, nor did I say I agree with everything he did or didn’t do. I did say in the past, and I repeat now, that in paying tribute to a widely-respected leader who had support on both sides of the political fence, it does not diminish your role as a citizen if you spend a single week of your life stifling your vehement criticism of him on whatever issue you most disagreed to mark his death. You aren’t required, naturally, to do so, but simple social graces might make some feel compelled to do so on their own.

The problem with the political side of this is that everyone who shows the slightest admiration for Reagan — on any level — is required for some reason to be “branded” as sharing to the letter every view Reagan had on everything. The liberals would have us believe that no one who likes Reagan could disagree with the man about anything. When Clinton lied about having sexual relations with Monica, since he was their man, did this mean that his supporters all believed that being dishonest is okay? Of course not. Is it fair that I lift this single event from his presidency and “forget” everything else he did in light of that one relatively minor (if infamous) incident? Of course not!

I hope I’ve made myself understood here. I certainly don’t want to give anyone the impression that by saying a few nice things about Ronald Reagan, that I am actually sending some secret “coded message” that I believe that AIDS reaseach and education funding should cease.

Can we drop the politics long enough to listen to that argument?

Admiring Reagan = Advocating no AIDS research/education Funding?

When you strip away your own political prejudices, doesn’t it sound ridiculous to assume that a Reagan supporter must be a Reagan supporter solely because of this issue? If it doesn’t, it should.

I understand that there are plenty of people who do oppose these things. If you assume that I do as well, without bothering to ask, then what does that say about you and your judgement of your fellow man?

I happen to consider myself a free thinker. I take individual issues and weigh them against my own belief system. I do not accept every judgement solely on party lines, just as I don’t ever vote by party alone. If you buy everything your party tells you, and you think your party has a sole monopoly on the truth and always knows the proper way to deal with every situation that comes up, I must respectfully suggest that you avoid political discussions: you’ll give yourself an ulcer.

If you cannot accept the fact that there are those who can vote for a Republican leader and still maintain some Democratic stands on certain issues, (or vice versa), then I don’t know why on earth you’d even think of coming back to this journal: obviously, I must be some kind of habitual liar who isn’t worth your reading time, right?

I end this piece with a challenge that I know can’t possibly be met. (Of course, that’s the whole point.) Consider every “great” president this country has ever had, and please find me one who was the perfect fit for every possible special interest group in the country…a president who had no critics…who let no one down in any way.

I think it’s pretty safe to say that you won’t find one. If you somehow manage to do so, think before you answer: you should prepare yourself to be wrongfully accused of sharing every point of view that president had or didn’t have. Be careful how you answer: the political sewage tanks are filling up fast on this one. I’m grabbing my boots.

Was I the only one who was tremendously moved by this moment?

Knowing of the Reagans’ long, passionate love affair, this was a difficult moment to watch. I can’t imagine how anyone could handle what Nancy Reagan is going through right now.

Beyond just having lost her husband of 52 years, she must also be wrestling with the same feelings so many others have to process when they lose someone who has been ailing for some time: the guilt over feeling relieved that the loved one’s long fight — as well as their own pain from witnessing it on a daily basis — is finally over.

Life is not fair. Sometimes…quite often, actually…it can even be cruel.