Entertainment Weekly featured Jon Lasseter, co-founder and chief creative officer of Pixar (and now chief creative officer for Disney animation), as one of its top entertainers of the past decade (2000-2009). Pixar is arguably the most successful filmmaking studio in Hollywood history, having repeatedly produced critically-acclaimed box office successes, amounting to 25 Oscar nominations and $4.1 billion worldwide in just the last ten years alone.
As the heart of this incredible company, Lasseter is an example of great leadership. He sets the bar high, not settling for anything less than the best, but he knows how to work as a team to achieve greatness. "It doesn't matter whose idea it is, the idea that makes the movie better is always used," he says. Plus, he believes in people, both his own team and the audience. "Oftentimes, it feels like Hollywood thinks of the audience as the lowest common denominator," says Lasseter. "We always think that the audience is so smart they'll be there for you - especially kids." Perhaps the best indication that Lasseter is a team player is the fact that he doesn't single himself out - he talks about his team as such, with the word "we."
Creating teamwork, fostering innovation, raising the bar, putting the work ahead of personal interest, having faith in others, and striving for the best. Sounds like a winning combination.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Leadership
I've been thinking a lot lately about leadership - what it is and what makes it good.
It seems to me that there are many leaders out there who aren't good leaders, or maybe they aren't truly leaders - just the people in charge.
Seth Godin, a marketing guru, discusses leadership in his book "Tribes." (An unorganized, impractical, and repetitive book but with some really inspiring thoughts. Kind of like paying $12 for a simple burger and the best part is a delicious bun...) He distinguishes leaders from managers: those who gather people together for a common cause compared with those who simply dictate to others what to do and how to do it. Godin also notes that one key characteristic of leaders is that they are selfless and put the mission above themselves. They also know how to connect people within the "tribe" of followers, know when to push ahead and when to take a step back from leading.
A selfless person who inspires with a clear vision, fosters the potential of his followers, and knows how to balance leaning in on and stepping back from his tribe? Sign me up for that tribe.
Godin's thesis is that anyone can be a leader. But if you ask me, too few people are great leaders. Then again, maybe there's actually a wealth of great leaders out there, each with his or her own small tribe.
What do you think is good leadership? Who is an example of a great leader?
It seems to me that there are many leaders out there who aren't good leaders, or maybe they aren't truly leaders - just the people in charge.
Seth Godin, a marketing guru, discusses leadership in his book "Tribes." (An unorganized, impractical, and repetitive book but with some really inspiring thoughts. Kind of like paying $12 for a simple burger and the best part is a delicious bun...) He distinguishes leaders from managers: those who gather people together for a common cause compared with those who simply dictate to others what to do and how to do it. Godin also notes that one key characteristic of leaders is that they are selfless and put the mission above themselves. They also know how to connect people within the "tribe" of followers, know when to push ahead and when to take a step back from leading.
A selfless person who inspires with a clear vision, fosters the potential of his followers, and knows how to balance leaning in on and stepping back from his tribe? Sign me up for that tribe.
Godin's thesis is that anyone can be a leader. But if you ask me, too few people are great leaders. Then again, maybe there's actually a wealth of great leaders out there, each with his or her own small tribe.
What do you think is good leadership? Who is an example of a great leader?
Friday, November 13, 2009
Get a move on, already!
Okay, Democrats, time to kick it up a notch.
Yet another poll came out this week showing Republicans gaining ground as the President's first year wraps up and the midterm political season begins. Will Democrats get the wallop experienced by their predecessors in 1994, the midterm election after Bill Clinton's election? Are we going to put Republicans back in Congress after deciding the last four years that their agenda was wrong for the country? Are Americans really that fickle? (The answer is: yes. Yes they are.)
Listen, Democrats, we elected you because we wanted change. We voted for your platform so you could make your vision of success a reality. While I certainly appreciate and prefer bipartisanship, the fact is that I prefer progress to watered-down compromise.
President Obama's diplomacy is certainly an asset. Democrat or otherwise, I don't think someone who ignores others in the pursuit of their agenda is successful or effective. However, he was also elected based on the promise of change, of pushing his agenda forward, and of redirecting this country. In seeking consensus on every idea he has, he may get more done in the end (yet to be seen) but will he successfully bring about the change he promised?
I elected President Obama because I believe he will do what's best for this country (and I agree with his vision of what's best). Sometimes, doing what is best means doing what isn't popular - a lesson he may learn with his decision on Afghanistan. Doing what is best means that you won't get support from everyone all of the time. But it should be done nevertheless, and that will mean leaving some people behind.
I think too much emphasis is place on "bipartisanship" and not enough is put on "democracy." Bipartisanship has been used when one Republican joins most Democrats to pass a bill, as with the health care bill passed by the House recently, but even pundits agree that that simply isn't bipartisanship. Bipartisanship would mean finding common ground between two ideologically-distant parties, which is unlikely to happen with the agenda Obama has set forth. Republicans are against government intervention, some staunchly so, and that places them inherently against a public option for health care and economic stimulus packages. Throw in their penchant for the energy industry and you can kiss a Kerry-Boxer or Waxman bill on climate change and cap-and-trade for carbon out the window. Bipartisanship, then, perhaps isn't the goal.
Democracy is about having your voice heard, having every voice heard equally. In a representative democracy like ours, that means we rely on our elected officials to speak loudly on our behalf (or trust them to choose the right thing to say on our behalf). It doesn't mean that voice will be the right one, or the one that wins, but it should be given due consideration. Obama's strength is in listening and considering all options; that I think is where he is bipartisan and a true diplomat. The problem is when he hears voices that he disagrees with, he tries to garner their support anyway.
Obama's election was by no means a mandate: nearly half the country voted for the other guy. And yes, many Republicans have legitimate and smart ideas to contribute. Consider those ideas. Embrace those ideas. Include those ideas in your plans. But because of fundamental differences you will not get bipartisanship on some things. Between pushing forward a democratic agenda that creates progress for our country but is opposed by Republicans and pushing forward a bipartisan compromise that barely satisfies anyone and doesn't create real change but is supported by both parties (and likely mocked by both parties), I choose the former. (Well, you know, as long as a Democrat is in charge.)
President Obama, you are supposed to be our President Bartlett: thoughtful, intelligent, diplomatic, democratic, compassionate, but strong and determined. Remind the people that bipartisanship is the goal, but democracy is what is important. Do what's right for the country, what you believe is best. We elected you because we believe you have what it takes to set things right. I like to think you are a better man than me, more capable of making the tough choices, of thinking through informed decision-making. I trust you to do what's best for me and my fellow Americans. Be brave, be bold. In the end, we will still support you, and those who don't will one day thank you.
So let's go, Democrats. Push your agenda forward. This is a democracy, not a group therapy session. Push your agenda forward, show the American people what you can do, that you can deliver on your promises, that you can provide the best leadership. Because demonstrating leadership and getting results is how you win an election.
And dear Lord, I want you all to win again next year.
Yet another poll came out this week showing Republicans gaining ground as the President's first year wraps up and the midterm political season begins. Will Democrats get the wallop experienced by their predecessors in 1994, the midterm election after Bill Clinton's election? Are we going to put Republicans back in Congress after deciding the last four years that their agenda was wrong for the country? Are Americans really that fickle? (The answer is: yes. Yes they are.)
Listen, Democrats, we elected you because we wanted change. We voted for your platform so you could make your vision of success a reality. While I certainly appreciate and prefer bipartisanship, the fact is that I prefer progress to watered-down compromise.
President Obama's diplomacy is certainly an asset. Democrat or otherwise, I don't think someone who ignores others in the pursuit of their agenda is successful or effective. However, he was also elected based on the promise of change, of pushing his agenda forward, and of redirecting this country. In seeking consensus on every idea he has, he may get more done in the end (yet to be seen) but will he successfully bring about the change he promised?
I elected President Obama because I believe he will do what's best for this country (and I agree with his vision of what's best). Sometimes, doing what is best means doing what isn't popular - a lesson he may learn with his decision on Afghanistan. Doing what is best means that you won't get support from everyone all of the time. But it should be done nevertheless, and that will mean leaving some people behind.
I think too much emphasis is place on "bipartisanship" and not enough is put on "democracy." Bipartisanship has been used when one Republican joins most Democrats to pass a bill, as with the health care bill passed by the House recently, but even pundits agree that that simply isn't bipartisanship. Bipartisanship would mean finding common ground between two ideologically-distant parties, which is unlikely to happen with the agenda Obama has set forth. Republicans are against government intervention, some staunchly so, and that places them inherently against a public option for health care and economic stimulus packages. Throw in their penchant for the energy industry and you can kiss a Kerry-Boxer or Waxman bill on climate change and cap-and-trade for carbon out the window. Bipartisanship, then, perhaps isn't the goal.
Democracy is about having your voice heard, having every voice heard equally. In a representative democracy like ours, that means we rely on our elected officials to speak loudly on our behalf (or trust them to choose the right thing to say on our behalf). It doesn't mean that voice will be the right one, or the one that wins, but it should be given due consideration. Obama's strength is in listening and considering all options; that I think is where he is bipartisan and a true diplomat. The problem is when he hears voices that he disagrees with, he tries to garner their support anyway.
Obama's election was by no means a mandate: nearly half the country voted for the other guy. And yes, many Republicans have legitimate and smart ideas to contribute. Consider those ideas. Embrace those ideas. Include those ideas in your plans. But because of fundamental differences you will not get bipartisanship on some things. Between pushing forward a democratic agenda that creates progress for our country but is opposed by Republicans and pushing forward a bipartisan compromise that barely satisfies anyone and doesn't create real change but is supported by both parties (and likely mocked by both parties), I choose the former. (Well, you know, as long as a Democrat is in charge.)
President Obama, you are supposed to be our President Bartlett: thoughtful, intelligent, diplomatic, democratic, compassionate, but strong and determined. Remind the people that bipartisanship is the goal, but democracy is what is important. Do what's right for the country, what you believe is best. We elected you because we believe you have what it takes to set things right. I like to think you are a better man than me, more capable of making the tough choices, of thinking through informed decision-making. I trust you to do what's best for me and my fellow Americans. Be brave, be bold. In the end, we will still support you, and those who don't will one day thank you.
So let's go, Democrats. Push your agenda forward. This is a democracy, not a group therapy session. Push your agenda forward, show the American people what you can do, that you can deliver on your promises, that you can provide the best leadership. Because demonstrating leadership and getting results is how you win an election.
And dear Lord, I want you all to win again next year.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Execution of the DC Sniper
Last night, at 9:00 p.m. EST, John Allen Muhammed, aka "the DC Sniper," was executed by lethal injection at a Virginia prison. Silent, emotionless, he was strapped down to the gurney in the death chamber. At 9:06 p.m. he was asked if he had any last words, and he said nothing. At 9:08 p.m., the injections began, he began to breath heavily, blink repeatedly, and after a few deep breaths, fell still. At 9:11 p.m. he was declared dead.
With all the day-to-day business of my life, it was easy to get distracted and not think about this event, but every time I checked in with the news I was reminded of what unfolded a little more than seven years ago. Normally I don't pay attention to executions - usually I don't know the faces of death-row inmates, let alone their names or what they did to deserve their punishment. This time was different.
I moved to the Washington, DC area in June 2002. I had just graduated from college and was starting a six-month internship working in downtown DC. In July of that year, I moved into a studio apartment in downtown Silver Spring, MD, just north of the capitol. I was having a hard time adjusting to my new surroundings: settling in to a new place, getting familiar with a new city, adjusting to a new job, trying to meet new people and make new friends. Having grown up outside of New York City, I was used to the energy of that city, and Washington, DC was a different sort of animal.
And then people started getting shot. Not bad people. Not people who were caught up in a bad situation. Just random people, at random times, in random places. There was no pattern to the madness, no way to make sense of what was happening, and, most importantly, no way to rule yourself out as a potential target.
I distinct remember the panicked walks I made from my apartment to the Metro. I walked quickly. I was highly sensitive to my surroundings. I even tried not walking in a straight line, as the police had suggested. Once they made a link to some white box trucks, I was startled by every white truck I saw. Someone was out to kill people - any people - and I could have been one of them.
One of the murders took place one mile south of my apartment, at an intersection that I often passed through. Another took place two miles up the road from me, again, not far from places I often passed through.
I hate when politicians say that we cannot live in fear because then we let terrorists win. Let me tell you something: when you know that your life is truly in danger every day, you will be scared. Terrorists have existed since before Biblical times, and the reason people still do it? It works.
I was both mortified and fascinated by those three weeks in October 2002. Mortified because I feared for my life, but fascinated by the genius of what the DC Sniper was doing: keeping people in fear, keeping the police guessing, even taunting the police and getting away with it. It was surreal, like living in a James Patterson novel, or a serial killer movie. I'm not sure why, but I seem to have some sort of twisted interest in abnormal and deviant people. Maybe I just like to figure out what it is that makes people tick, maybe it's a bizarre sense of empathy. But I do not want to go through the experience again of fearing I might be one of their victims.
When it comes to capital punishment, I'm not sure which way I stand. On the one hand, I think life is precious, and that no one should take the life of another person. At the same time, these people are dangerous, maybe disturbed, and they have caused great suffering for others. We can let them live in a high-security facility, which isn't much of a life anyway, or we can just, well, eliminate them - not just from the rest of society, but from existence, easing the minds of those who know that the people who took their loved ones are still alive somewhere. In more primitive societies, those who killed others either came to dominate or were ostracized - or even killed. Human societies have always sought some kind of order in a world of random disorder, and those who don't play by the rules either change the game or are kicked out. What's the difference, really, between locking someone away for the rest of his life and simply killing him? I know there's the religious argument (which ironically works both ways - life is God's creation but an eye for an eye) but absent some moral construction, the point is the same: they are not a part of "normal" society. Is killing ever a satisfactory vengeance? Most would argue it's not, even the families of victims who witness the executions firsthand. It certainly doesn't change the past, or bring back those who were lost.
When I read about John Allen Muhammed's execution, I was filled with a mix of emotions. "Wow, they actually got him, convicted him, and already it's time for him to die." "Is execution really the way to go?" "Thank goodness, that bastard's gonna get what's coming to him." Honestly, part of me feels like a just punishment for both the pain he caused and the fear he evoked is to let him loose on some secure property for awhile, and let him know that at some point he will be shot and killed. Don't tell him when, or where, or how. Just let him go about his life and live in fear. And then, at some random time in some random place, shoot him. Or let one of the relatives of one of his victims shoot him. That would be justice.
Of course, it would also be cruel. Just as cruel as he was to the rest of us living in the DC area in that fall of 2002. But part of me still wants to inflict that kind of cruelty on him. A murderous monster who claimed he was innocent up until the day he died. A mentally-unstable man who suffered during the Gulf War and afterward as a result of doing his duty. A vengeful but sad man who created this whole rouse as a cover for murdering his ex-wife. Victim of his own life story, of circumstances and situations that had come before, but also the cause of death and destruction for so many people.
And I realize just how affected I was by this man. And I'm just one of many, I'm sure. I wonder who else is out there who read about his execution and was stirred the way I was? Why does it still bother me? Why do I have such mixed emotions? Why do I even care?
Because life is precious, and for three weeks, this man threatened to take that gift away from us. Now his turn has come, and the whole situation is an oxymoron: take the life of a man who took life from another, because he should not have done that, because life is precious.
Thinking about it now, I think the whole thing bothers me because that whole experience I went through reminds me of my own mortality. It scares the hell out of me, and no matter what I do, I can't change my mortality. Getting back at someone for making me feel that way does nothing to change my mortality. Muhammed's death is just another event out of the billions of events that take place each day around the world. His death is just one of many, unfortunately, but he got the headline that day.
So I try and let it go, and I take a deep breath. I remind myself that it's over, both the situation seven years ago and the execution that took place last night. I go about my business. I turn away and look around.
And I do my best to remember that life is precious.
With all the day-to-day business of my life, it was easy to get distracted and not think about this event, but every time I checked in with the news I was reminded of what unfolded a little more than seven years ago. Normally I don't pay attention to executions - usually I don't know the faces of death-row inmates, let alone their names or what they did to deserve their punishment. This time was different.
I moved to the Washington, DC area in June 2002. I had just graduated from college and was starting a six-month internship working in downtown DC. In July of that year, I moved into a studio apartment in downtown Silver Spring, MD, just north of the capitol. I was having a hard time adjusting to my new surroundings: settling in to a new place, getting familiar with a new city, adjusting to a new job, trying to meet new people and make new friends. Having grown up outside of New York City, I was used to the energy of that city, and Washington, DC was a different sort of animal.
And then people started getting shot. Not bad people. Not people who were caught up in a bad situation. Just random people, at random times, in random places. There was no pattern to the madness, no way to make sense of what was happening, and, most importantly, no way to rule yourself out as a potential target.
I distinct remember the panicked walks I made from my apartment to the Metro. I walked quickly. I was highly sensitive to my surroundings. I even tried not walking in a straight line, as the police had suggested. Once they made a link to some white box trucks, I was startled by every white truck I saw. Someone was out to kill people - any people - and I could have been one of them.
One of the murders took place one mile south of my apartment, at an intersection that I often passed through. Another took place two miles up the road from me, again, not far from places I often passed through.
I hate when politicians say that we cannot live in fear because then we let terrorists win. Let me tell you something: when you know that your life is truly in danger every day, you will be scared. Terrorists have existed since before Biblical times, and the reason people still do it? It works.
I was both mortified and fascinated by those three weeks in October 2002. Mortified because I feared for my life, but fascinated by the genius of what the DC Sniper was doing: keeping people in fear, keeping the police guessing, even taunting the police and getting away with it. It was surreal, like living in a James Patterson novel, or a serial killer movie. I'm not sure why, but I seem to have some sort of twisted interest in abnormal and deviant people. Maybe I just like to figure out what it is that makes people tick, maybe it's a bizarre sense of empathy. But I do not want to go through the experience again of fearing I might be one of their victims.
When it comes to capital punishment, I'm not sure which way I stand. On the one hand, I think life is precious, and that no one should take the life of another person. At the same time, these people are dangerous, maybe disturbed, and they have caused great suffering for others. We can let them live in a high-security facility, which isn't much of a life anyway, or we can just, well, eliminate them - not just from the rest of society, but from existence, easing the minds of those who know that the people who took their loved ones are still alive somewhere. In more primitive societies, those who killed others either came to dominate or were ostracized - or even killed. Human societies have always sought some kind of order in a world of random disorder, and those who don't play by the rules either change the game or are kicked out. What's the difference, really, between locking someone away for the rest of his life and simply killing him? I know there's the religious argument (which ironically works both ways - life is God's creation but an eye for an eye) but absent some moral construction, the point is the same: they are not a part of "normal" society. Is killing ever a satisfactory vengeance? Most would argue it's not, even the families of victims who witness the executions firsthand. It certainly doesn't change the past, or bring back those who were lost.
When I read about John Allen Muhammed's execution, I was filled with a mix of emotions. "Wow, they actually got him, convicted him, and already it's time for him to die." "Is execution really the way to go?" "Thank goodness, that bastard's gonna get what's coming to him." Honestly, part of me feels like a just punishment for both the pain he caused and the fear he evoked is to let him loose on some secure property for awhile, and let him know that at some point he will be shot and killed. Don't tell him when, or where, or how. Just let him go about his life and live in fear. And then, at some random time in some random place, shoot him. Or let one of the relatives of one of his victims shoot him. That would be justice.
Of course, it would also be cruel. Just as cruel as he was to the rest of us living in the DC area in that fall of 2002. But part of me still wants to inflict that kind of cruelty on him. A murderous monster who claimed he was innocent up until the day he died. A mentally-unstable man who suffered during the Gulf War and afterward as a result of doing his duty. A vengeful but sad man who created this whole rouse as a cover for murdering his ex-wife. Victim of his own life story, of circumstances and situations that had come before, but also the cause of death and destruction for so many people.
And I realize just how affected I was by this man. And I'm just one of many, I'm sure. I wonder who else is out there who read about his execution and was stirred the way I was? Why does it still bother me? Why do I have such mixed emotions? Why do I even care?
Because life is precious, and for three weeks, this man threatened to take that gift away from us. Now his turn has come, and the whole situation is an oxymoron: take the life of a man who took life from another, because he should not have done that, because life is precious.
Thinking about it now, I think the whole thing bothers me because that whole experience I went through reminds me of my own mortality. It scares the hell out of me, and no matter what I do, I can't change my mortality. Getting back at someone for making me feel that way does nothing to change my mortality. Muhammed's death is just another event out of the billions of events that take place each day around the world. His death is just one of many, unfortunately, but he got the headline that day.
So I try and let it go, and I take a deep breath. I remind myself that it's over, both the situation seven years ago and the execution that took place last night. I go about my business. I turn away and look around.
And I do my best to remember that life is precious.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
From a devoted fan of CNN
Dear CNN,
I greatly appreciate your efforts to recognize and engage your viewers. Your iReports allow everyday people to contribute and tell stories that would otherwise not get coverage (though usually for good reasons). The new CNN website is rather streamlined and easy on the eyes (though not very different from the old one except for moving things around). And your balanced coverage of everything from politics to perverse commercials certainly appeals to a wide audience (both intelligent and otherwise).
However, I would like to let you know that while I am an avid fan and viewer of your programming, I have been bothered of late by your anchors' use of social media, such as twitter and Facebook. Sure, some people may have particularly interesting responses or commentary on the latest news. Perhaps I get to hear a different perspective on the subject (in 140 characters or less) or else hear my voice expressed through another's opinions. And yes, from a strategic communications standpoint, giving people an opportunity to respond and partake in your reports builds a stronger base of support, which is no doubt important, particularly when there are several competing news networks and the ever-threatening Internet nipping at your televised heels.
But let's be serious. Seriously. You guys are supposed to be our reliable and professional source of information. "America's Most Trusted News Source." "The Best Political News Team on Television." I turn to you for expert opinion, for accuracy and precision, for facts and details I can't get elsewhere, and for thoughtful and informed analysis of important issues. If I want to know what my friends and neighbors think, I'll ask. If I want to see the latest Facebook feed, I'll go online (which is what you want me to do anyway, right? visit your Facebook page?). And if I want meaningless, nonsensical and unfounded commentary, I can flip over to the Fox News Channel.
The point is that I turn to you for credible and detailed information about critical issues affecting me, our country, and our world. (Canadian breast cancer ads called "Save the Boobs" are interesting and fun to watch, but not quite as "critical" as terrorism, nuclear disarmament, health care, education, climate change, energy policy, and what kind of dog the presidential family plans to adopt.) Surely your time is better spent providing reliable information on a story rather than the feedback of someone who is at home during the day responding to your social media feeds. (No doubt those people are upstanding, hard-working individuals with respectable careers that happen to have enough time, effort and interest to post on Facebook at three-thirty in the afternoon in response to a Rick Sanchez piece on whether or not Hollywood is sending viewers subliminal messages.) I like to believe that your staff have the talent, expertise and resources to produce enough interesting and high-quality news to fill your airtime without deferring to the thoughts and opinions of average Americans with little to no expertise in the topics at hand.
If you want to present expert commentary and analysis (and why shouldn't you?), defer to your own team of expert commentators and analysts. I'm a big fan of Gloria Borger, David Gergen, and Candy Crowley, all of whom provide excellent, informed, informative, and unbiased perspectives. (What happened to Bill Schneider, a great political reporter whose character and delivery seemed to capture the spirit of the everyman but whose questions and insights demonstrated his expertise and intelligence?) While I appreciate your efforts to be unbiased by featuring "both sides of the aisle" in all discussions, these partisan PR people only spew the party line, and don't offer anything new or interesting to the discussion. I appreciate Paul Begala and James Carville for their entertainment value, but they are hard-nosed Democrats to the end (which is why I love them). And can someone please please please force these "on message" partisans to answer a question when asked, rather than deflecting a question about how Bush may have had a hand in the current economic situation by talking about how Obama's approval ratings are dropping? Such dithering from partisans doesn't inform and engage the viewer. It does the opposite: forces us to change the channel.
Speaking of non-partisan opinions, I would like to clarify that the word "unbiased" is not necessarily the same as "independent" if "independent" means "grumpy, old, white men who complain about both sides" - as it seems to be for the independents in your programming. "Mr. Independent" himself is the worst of this kind: rather than serving as an independent in the sense of not aligning with either party platform, instead Lou Dobbs serves as independent in the sense of hating everyone and complaining about everything. And I'm sure Jack Cafferty is a nice guy, and I wouldn't mind having a beer with him sometime, but does his segment add anything to the program? He's another grumpy, old, white man - but at least he takes feedback from the viewers. Unfortunately, he shares that feedback with me, as though I yearn to hear average (read: uninformed and opinionated) Americans repeating "the party line" for both parties. Again, letting both sides air their opinions does not make your reporting unbiased, and independent should be more than evenhanded complaining of both sides.
If you want to engage your viewers, and if you want to be more entertaining, take a note from Jon Stewart. Jon manages to be informative, highlighting the important (and ridiculous) news of the day, provide commentary and opinions that enrich our understanding of the situation, and he is independent in his presentation, equally mocking and complimenting both sides. Granted, his show is not a real news show, but imagine what CNN could do if it adopted that idea, applying your panel of unbiased experts to really analyze the facts and the hype, the good and bad, the absurd and realistic. The Daily Show succeeds because it is engaging, and it is engaging because it provides an honest commentary on top news. CNN can adopt this kind of approach, infusing its fact-based information with honest, down-to-earth analysis from unbiased experts, rather than relying on partisan (and whiny) talking heads that spew partisan (and whiny) bullet points.
Want to engage viewers, CNN? Create engaging programming. That doesn't mean trying to appeal to everyone by finding the lowest common denominator. Just the opposite: raise the bar higher, provide more in-depth and expert analysis, call people out, give honest opinions, and cut the shenanigans. If I want to watch grumpy, old, white men debate the issues with partisan slander, I'll turn to CSPAN.
I say all this as a loyal fan of your network, who turns to you and you alone for the best news on television, election-year or no. I not only want you to live up to your own tag lines, but I want you to also live up to "America's Best Unbiased and Informative News Source."
So thanks for your time and consideration, and I wish you the best of luck in the Internet Age.
Yours,
Eric
P.S. I will post all of this on twitter and Facebook so you can include it in your broadcasts.
I greatly appreciate your efforts to recognize and engage your viewers. Your iReports allow everyday people to contribute and tell stories that would otherwise not get coverage (though usually for good reasons). The new CNN website is rather streamlined and easy on the eyes (though not very different from the old one except for moving things around). And your balanced coverage of everything from politics to perverse commercials certainly appeals to a wide audience (both intelligent and otherwise).
However, I would like to let you know that while I am an avid fan and viewer of your programming, I have been bothered of late by your anchors' use of social media, such as twitter and Facebook. Sure, some people may have particularly interesting responses or commentary on the latest news. Perhaps I get to hear a different perspective on the subject (in 140 characters or less) or else hear my voice expressed through another's opinions. And yes, from a strategic communications standpoint, giving people an opportunity to respond and partake in your reports builds a stronger base of support, which is no doubt important, particularly when there are several competing news networks and the ever-threatening Internet nipping at your televised heels.
But let's be serious. Seriously. You guys are supposed to be our reliable and professional source of information. "America's Most Trusted News Source." "The Best Political News Team on Television." I turn to you for expert opinion, for accuracy and precision, for facts and details I can't get elsewhere, and for thoughtful and informed analysis of important issues. If I want to know what my friends and neighbors think, I'll ask. If I want to see the latest Facebook feed, I'll go online (which is what you want me to do anyway, right? visit your Facebook page?). And if I want meaningless, nonsensical and unfounded commentary, I can flip over to the Fox News Channel.
The point is that I turn to you for credible and detailed information about critical issues affecting me, our country, and our world. (Canadian breast cancer ads called "Save the Boobs" are interesting and fun to watch, but not quite as "critical" as terrorism, nuclear disarmament, health care, education, climate change, energy policy, and what kind of dog the presidential family plans to adopt.) Surely your time is better spent providing reliable information on a story rather than the feedback of someone who is at home during the day responding to your social media feeds. (No doubt those people are upstanding, hard-working individuals with respectable careers that happen to have enough time, effort and interest to post on Facebook at three-thirty in the afternoon in response to a Rick Sanchez piece on whether or not Hollywood is sending viewers subliminal messages.) I like to believe that your staff have the talent, expertise and resources to produce enough interesting and high-quality news to fill your airtime without deferring to the thoughts and opinions of average Americans with little to no expertise in the topics at hand.
If you want to present expert commentary and analysis (and why shouldn't you?), defer to your own team of expert commentators and analysts. I'm a big fan of Gloria Borger, David Gergen, and Candy Crowley, all of whom provide excellent, informed, informative, and unbiased perspectives. (What happened to Bill Schneider, a great political reporter whose character and delivery seemed to capture the spirit of the everyman but whose questions and insights demonstrated his expertise and intelligence?) While I appreciate your efforts to be unbiased by featuring "both sides of the aisle" in all discussions, these partisan PR people only spew the party line, and don't offer anything new or interesting to the discussion. I appreciate Paul Begala and James Carville for their entertainment value, but they are hard-nosed Democrats to the end (which is why I love them). And can someone please please please force these "on message" partisans to answer a question when asked, rather than deflecting a question about how Bush may have had a hand in the current economic situation by talking about how Obama's approval ratings are dropping? Such dithering from partisans doesn't inform and engage the viewer. It does the opposite: forces us to change the channel.
Speaking of non-partisan opinions, I would like to clarify that the word "unbiased" is not necessarily the same as "independent" if "independent" means "grumpy, old, white men who complain about both sides" - as it seems to be for the independents in your programming. "Mr. Independent" himself is the worst of this kind: rather than serving as an independent in the sense of not aligning with either party platform, instead Lou Dobbs serves as independent in the sense of hating everyone and complaining about everything. And I'm sure Jack Cafferty is a nice guy, and I wouldn't mind having a beer with him sometime, but does his segment add anything to the program? He's another grumpy, old, white man - but at least he takes feedback from the viewers. Unfortunately, he shares that feedback with me, as though I yearn to hear average (read: uninformed and opinionated) Americans repeating "the party line" for both parties. Again, letting both sides air their opinions does not make your reporting unbiased, and independent should be more than evenhanded complaining of both sides.
If you want to engage your viewers, and if you want to be more entertaining, take a note from Jon Stewart. Jon manages to be informative, highlighting the important (and ridiculous) news of the day, provide commentary and opinions that enrich our understanding of the situation, and he is independent in his presentation, equally mocking and complimenting both sides. Granted, his show is not a real news show, but imagine what CNN could do if it adopted that idea, applying your panel of unbiased experts to really analyze the facts and the hype, the good and bad, the absurd and realistic. The Daily Show succeeds because it is engaging, and it is engaging because it provides an honest commentary on top news. CNN can adopt this kind of approach, infusing its fact-based information with honest, down-to-earth analysis from unbiased experts, rather than relying on partisan (and whiny) talking heads that spew partisan (and whiny) bullet points.
Want to engage viewers, CNN? Create engaging programming. That doesn't mean trying to appeal to everyone by finding the lowest common denominator. Just the opposite: raise the bar higher, provide more in-depth and expert analysis, call people out, give honest opinions, and cut the shenanigans. If I want to watch grumpy, old, white men debate the issues with partisan slander, I'll turn to CSPAN.
I say all this as a loyal fan of your network, who turns to you and you alone for the best news on television, election-year or no. I not only want you to live up to your own tag lines, but I want you to also live up to "America's Best Unbiased and Informative News Source."
So thanks for your time and consideration, and I wish you the best of luck in the Internet Age.
Yours,
Eric
P.S. I will post all of this on twitter and Facebook so you can include it in your broadcasts.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
10 Reasons I Love "Saved By The Bell"
1. Kelly Kapowski. Yep, numero uno. I'm not ashamed to admit that Kelly Kapowski/Tiffani Thiessen (previously Tiffani-Amber Thiessen) was my very first celebrity crush as a pre-pubescent lad. Cute, sweet, and oh so hot in those '80s clothes
2. The antics. School was never that much fun for me, or anyone, really. That was the point, right? Escapism. Living vicariously. Suspension of disbelief. But it sure was entertaining.
3. The locations. Sure, most of the action took place in the same hallway at the base of the stairs by the classroom where all their classes took place and by Belding's office and by the bathroom. But there was the aforementioned classroom that seemed to have a thousand different arrangements and functions (English class, math class, chemistry, etc.). There were their homes, specifically their bedrooms, which were as large as the entire upper floor of the house I grew up in, and nicer. And, most importantly, there was The Max, the student hangout that was like a '50s soda shop reborn as a pizza place in the '80s: where everyone from school (and town) gathered and spent loads of time without parental supervision. I don't know about you, but our school/town didn't really have one of these places, not until Starbucks moved into town during junior year. There was the back parking lot and the bleachers behind the football field, but those were a little different, in both ambiance and the delinquent activities that took place there... at night.
4. The laugh track. The "oooooooooh"s when people kissed. The "oooooooooh"s when someone get in trouble. And the perfectly placed laugh to let you know that what you just heard was funny. Even when Screech was involved.
5. Speaking of which, Screech Powers/Justin Diamond. In what school was the nerdiest kid around, annoying voice and irritating misunderstandings and all, friends with the good-looking prankster and the buff jock? This show was a weekly "Breakfast Club" where everyone could identify with someone and everyone got along. For some, Screech represented the unattainable reality, a geek who - though not cool - hung out with the cool kids. I'm sure lots of young dorks aspired to be like Screech (though I imagine that if they tried to remain friends with their cool pals from elementary school, they were likely ditched by eighth grade). Screech was an aspiration and an anomaly, and while his whole absurd character was unreal, it was also grounded in the painful realities of high school: shoved in lockers, and couldn't get the girl. Still, score one for Mr. Powers - despite it all, he was one of the gang.
6. The issues. Ridiculous a show as it was, SBTB dealt with serious issues, from friendship and sibling rivalry to divorce and drug use. Not quite as dramatic as 90210 or The OC, but in many ways this show paved the way for those later primetime teen soaps. (Good thing or bad? You decide.)
7. Adaptation. When the show first started, it was about the teacher, Miss Bliss, and featured only three of the main characters from the well-known version. This alternate version, which lasted only one season, featured the leather-jacket-wearing Nikki and the opening sequence which had Zack talking directly to the camera. When NBC picked up the show, the focus switched to the students, Nikki was dropped, and enter Kelly, Jessie, and Slater. And because the show featured real people who would grow up (except Mario Lopez, who was already grown up when he joined the cast), the show progressed through the years. Of course, when Thiessen and Berkley refused to sign a contract for a season, a new cute female character was brought on to fill the void, and magically disappeared when the other actresses returned. Just when you thought the show would end once they graduated high school, SBTB brought back your favorite gang for college, where they all (coincidentally) ended at the same school! New hijinks ensued, but not for long - SBTB: The College Years ended after just one season. (I haven't watched SBTB: The New Class, out of respect for Zack, Kelly, Jessie, Slater, Lisa and Screech.)
8. Breaking the fourth wall. Like Ferris Bueller and Shakespearean characters before him, Zack Morris would address the audience directly, acknowledging the fact that there were viewers. A small thing to some, but a really smart way for the show to bring the viewer in on the action, and to mix things up from the usual sitcom. (This was in the era before the now-ubiquitous "voice over" - used by most single-camera comedies and many dramas today.)
9. Did I mention Kelly Kapowski?
10. The lasting effect. While, honestly, this show didn't dramatically impact me like some other shows (superhero cartoons, Disney Afternoon, and "Friends" linger more prominently in my childhood memories) it nevertheless remains a true point of nostalgia - for me and arguably most people of my generation. Unless you grew up without television, nearly all people around the age of 30 can bond over memories from episodes of SBTB. And somehow we all remember more than we thought we did about the plots.
Saved By The Bell isn't something I think about often (I saw it on TV the other day while flipping through, which inspired this post) but it's still this significant marker of my growing up and a reminder of my still-intact innocence: before I knew what high school was really like, before I could understand the complexity of the storylines, and before I knew that Tiffani-Amber Thiessen was unattainable. Good times. Thanks, SBTB.
2. The antics. School was never that much fun for me, or anyone, really. That was the point, right? Escapism. Living vicariously. Suspension of disbelief. But it sure was entertaining.
3. The locations. Sure, most of the action took place in the same hallway at the base of the stairs by the classroom where all their classes took place and by Belding's office and by the bathroom. But there was the aforementioned classroom that seemed to have a thousand different arrangements and functions (English class, math class, chemistry, etc.). There were their homes, specifically their bedrooms, which were as large as the entire upper floor of the house I grew up in, and nicer. And, most importantly, there was The Max, the student hangout that was like a '50s soda shop reborn as a pizza place in the '80s: where everyone from school (and town) gathered and spent loads of time without parental supervision. I don't know about you, but our school/town didn't really have one of these places, not until Starbucks moved into town during junior year. There was the back parking lot and the bleachers behind the football field, but those were a little different, in both ambiance and the delinquent activities that took place there... at night.
4. The laugh track. The "oooooooooh"s when people kissed. The "oooooooooh"s when someone get in trouble. And the perfectly placed laugh to let you know that what you just heard was funny. Even when Screech was involved.
5. Speaking of which, Screech Powers/Justin Diamond. In what school was the nerdiest kid around, annoying voice and irritating misunderstandings and all, friends with the good-looking prankster and the buff jock? This show was a weekly "Breakfast Club" where everyone could identify with someone and everyone got along. For some, Screech represented the unattainable reality, a geek who - though not cool - hung out with the cool kids. I'm sure lots of young dorks aspired to be like Screech (though I imagine that if they tried to remain friends with their cool pals from elementary school, they were likely ditched by eighth grade). Screech was an aspiration and an anomaly, and while his whole absurd character was unreal, it was also grounded in the painful realities of high school: shoved in lockers, and couldn't get the girl. Still, score one for Mr. Powers - despite it all, he was one of the gang.
6. The issues. Ridiculous a show as it was, SBTB dealt with serious issues, from friendship and sibling rivalry to divorce and drug use. Not quite as dramatic as 90210 or The OC, but in many ways this show paved the way for those later primetime teen soaps. (Good thing or bad? You decide.)
7. Adaptation. When the show first started, it was about the teacher, Miss Bliss, and featured only three of the main characters from the well-known version. This alternate version, which lasted only one season, featured the leather-jacket-wearing Nikki and the opening sequence which had Zack talking directly to the camera. When NBC picked up the show, the focus switched to the students, Nikki was dropped, and enter Kelly, Jessie, and Slater. And because the show featured real people who would grow up (except Mario Lopez, who was already grown up when he joined the cast), the show progressed through the years. Of course, when Thiessen and Berkley refused to sign a contract for a season, a new cute female character was brought on to fill the void, and magically disappeared when the other actresses returned. Just when you thought the show would end once they graduated high school, SBTB brought back your favorite gang for college, where they all (coincidentally) ended at the same school! New hijinks ensued, but not for long - SBTB: The College Years ended after just one season. (I haven't watched SBTB: The New Class, out of respect for Zack, Kelly, Jessie, Slater, Lisa and Screech.)
8. Breaking the fourth wall. Like Ferris Bueller and Shakespearean characters before him, Zack Morris would address the audience directly, acknowledging the fact that there were viewers. A small thing to some, but a really smart way for the show to bring the viewer in on the action, and to mix things up from the usual sitcom. (This was in the era before the now-ubiquitous "voice over" - used by most single-camera comedies and many dramas today.)
9. Did I mention Kelly Kapowski?
10. The lasting effect. While, honestly, this show didn't dramatically impact me like some other shows (superhero cartoons, Disney Afternoon, and "Friends" linger more prominently in my childhood memories) it nevertheless remains a true point of nostalgia - for me and arguably most people of my generation. Unless you grew up without television, nearly all people around the age of 30 can bond over memories from episodes of SBTB. And somehow we all remember more than we thought we did about the plots.
Saved By The Bell isn't something I think about often (I saw it on TV the other day while flipping through, which inspired this post) but it's still this significant marker of my growing up and a reminder of my still-intact innocence: before I knew what high school was really like, before I could understand the complexity of the storylines, and before I knew that Tiffani-Amber Thiessen was unattainable. Good times. Thanks, SBTB.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The Pros and Cons of Astronomers
Pro: They find cool stuff and share it with us. Scientists recently confirmed 32 new "exoplanets" (planets outside our solar system - other than poor, demoted Pluto).
Con: Boy, do I feel stupid, thanks to these guys.
Pro: Boy, do I feel way cool compared to these guys. Wicked smart, I'm sure some of them have come up with a formula for seducing women, perhaps by luring them into their observatories and showing them the great expanse of the universe with their manly computer technology. But seriously, what are the odds? I recently went to a wedding full of incredibly smart people - PhDs in astrophysics or bioengineering or something. I can honestly say I was the coolest person in the room. And all I had to do was show up.
Con: What the heck am I doing with my life? These people are discovering the universe, for goodness sake! I'm sitting here at a computer writing a blog about how smart but geeky these guys are, and they're finding new worlds. Them: Christopher Columbus of the heavens; me: Christopher Marlowe, without the talent or the fame.
Pro: Spending all that time with equations and staring through a telescope? What sort of difference are they really making? I may not be saving whales or anything (though I can say that my last job involved attempting to limit the harm to whales from coastal development) but one could argue what these guys are doing is equally unproductive for society.
Conclusion: Despite my complaints, astronomers rock, if only because they expand the limits of our knowledge... and from time to time, make me feel cooler. A little.
Con: Boy, do I feel stupid, thanks to these guys.
The announcement was made by a consortium of international researchers, headed by the Geneva Observatory, who built the High Accuracy Radial Velocity Planet Searcher, or HARPS. The device can detect slight wobbles of stars as they respond to tugs from exoplanets' gravity. That tactic, known as the radial velocity method, "has been the most prolific method in the search for exoplanets," according to the European Southern Observatory statement.Detecting slight wobbles of stars millions and millions of miles from here? Using a "radial velocity method"? Think you're smarter than the rest of us, with your fancy equations and giant telescopes? Well, you are. So screw you, geeks.
Pro: Boy, do I feel way cool compared to these guys. Wicked smart, I'm sure some of them have come up with a formula for seducing women, perhaps by luring them into their observatories and showing them the great expanse of the universe with their manly computer technology. But seriously, what are the odds? I recently went to a wedding full of incredibly smart people - PhDs in astrophysics or bioengineering or something. I can honestly say I was the coolest person in the room. And all I had to do was show up.
Con: What the heck am I doing with my life? These people are discovering the universe, for goodness sake! I'm sitting here at a computer writing a blog about how smart but geeky these guys are, and they're finding new worlds. Them: Christopher Columbus of the heavens; me: Christopher Marlowe, without the talent or the fame.
Pro: Spending all that time with equations and staring through a telescope? What sort of difference are they really making? I may not be saving whales or anything (though I can say that my last job involved attempting to limit the harm to whales from coastal development) but one could argue what these guys are doing is equally unproductive for society.
Conclusion: Despite my complaints, astronomers rock, if only because they expand the limits of our knowledge... and from time to time, make me feel cooler. A little.
No time like the present...
It's time. Time to join the masses. Time to get on that bandwagon.
It's Miller time. It's time to start a blog.
I've failed miserably in the past to keep a journal - to capture the fleeting, spontaneous, and random; to inscribe the emotional, memorable, and momentous. Eventually, all of my prematurely-deceased journals ended with the same last few entries: "Too tired. Will write tomorrow."
Well, today is tomorrow (according to yesterday's news). I'm hoping to capture those random thoughts and idle musings on just about anything and everything. Cool article I spotted? I'll share it here. Need to vent? I'll do it here. Questions about the great unknown? I'll probably seek professional advice, but I'll also ask 'em here. The topics will range from politics to celebrities to the environment to that guy last night who seemed to forget that the '90s "strut" is long gone (or is it?). Some posts will be enlightening, some amusing, and some downright terrible. (But you won't know till you read it. Ooooooh, element of mystery and surprise!) Hope you will enjoy my mix of deep thoughts, fascination, sarcasm, humor, and lighthearted observations.
Things are happening all around us. This is an examination and analysis of those things.
This is a study of life.
I've failed miserably in the past to keep a journal - to capture the fleeting, spontaneous, and random; to inscribe the emotional, memorable, and momentous. Eventually, all of my prematurely-deceased journals ended with the same last few entries: "Too tired. Will write tomorrow."
Well, today is tomorrow (according to yesterday's news). I'm hoping to capture those random thoughts and idle musings on just about anything and everything. Cool article I spotted? I'll share it here. Need to vent? I'll do it here. Questions about the great unknown? I'll probably seek professional advice, but I'll also ask 'em here. The topics will range from politics to celebrities to the environment to that guy last night who seemed to forget that the '90s "strut" is long gone (or is it?). Some posts will be enlightening, some amusing, and some downright terrible. (But you won't know till you read it. Ooooooh, element of mystery and surprise!) Hope you will enjoy my mix of deep thoughts, fascination, sarcasm, humor, and lighthearted observations.
Things are happening all around us. This is an examination and analysis of those things.
This is a study of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
