Category: government

Of journalism, objectivity and emotion

A rally on climate change was held in Bend Sunday.

For a moment, I’d like you to step back from your personal views on the topic and consider this perspective: You are the reporter, or the editor who assigned such a story.

In some cases, such a rally brings out counter-demonstrators with a different perspective.

In this case, however, there was none. Turnout was … well, we said “dozens,” so let’s say about 50 folks.

So … as reporter/editor, do you go seeking out people with other perspectives to “balance” the story? And if you do, do you include a line or two from them, or scrupulously make the story 50-5o? (On a holiday-weekend Sunday when you are unlikely to be able to reach many of the experts on the other side? Not that anyone at the rally claimed to be an expert.)

Or do you just tell of the rally, how many were there, and some of their views?

(Or say the rally was for or against … new immigration policies. For or against new gun regulations, or abortion, or any other incendiary, one side-never-will-convince-the-other-side issue.)

Or do you not cover the rally at all, because it’s inherently one-sided?

I personally think you report what happened, and it’s as high or low in your lineup of stories as the rest of the day’s news suggests. Then, when people on the other side hold their rally or gathering, you strive to give it similar treatment. Not “equal.” That’s too precise a measurement for messy humans.

We’re not robots. We don’t count words or syllables. If one side in one of these seemingly never-ending disputes is better organized, it’s not our job to help the other side organize – but it could be our job to note, factually, that lack of organization. Right? The loudest voice shouldn’t always win, but neither should the quietest, just because we consider them “right.”

Someone who’s a regular on our Website’s comments threw out the line, “Whatever happened to real journalism”?

I argued that there’s just as much of it out there as there ever was — even more so, perhaps, in the world of the Internet.

What has changed, far more, is for many, is the partisan nature of the prism through which they view journalism.

If a story doesn’t include their perspective, or their favorite caustic stat or antidote to hurl at the other side, it’s not “objective.”

Talk-show hosts get more hours per week than anyone else to rail against the “mainstream,” “lamestream” media — as if they aren’t part of it. Oh no, they are the “balance” against it.

We get complaints, like all media these days, of being on the president’s side. Others, meanwhile, claim some large corporations dictate what we cover and how, and what to ignore.

It seems there’s barely any room for civil debate and discussion any more — in a world of walking on eggshells and avoiding landmines.

Perhaps Congress and the president are so sharply split only as a reflection of a sharply divided nation, with everyone frustrated but the partisans dug deep into their foxholes, ready to fire at anything that moves. (With words, not bullets, of course.)

But I should hasten to add that our goal is to not let the relatively small number of fierce partisans on both/all sides of these tough, complex issues mislead us into thinking that the majority of our viewers and readers agree with them and disdain our work. Because thankfully, there are glorious occasional glimpses of just what the (Nixon phrase warning) silent majority think, and it’s frustration, for sure – but as much with the discussion-hijackers and the flamethrowers as the policymakers and the govt. bureaucrats who are just trying to do their jobs and help folks.

I’ve been at this gig for a long time, and I know how the blossoming of social media has given folks who used to write occasional pithy letters to the editor or complain loudly over the phone a new megaphone in which to try to take over the discussion and verbally beat the other side into submission … as everyone else walks away, frustrated and disgusted.

I just hope and pray that the signal of democracy — messy but vital — isn’t drowned out permanently by the noise of the haters. (I may do a bumper sticker one day: ‘To BLAME is to B-LAME.” That’s my Blame Society slogan of the day;-) Because if all we care about is “winning” and proving the ones on the other side of this or that incendiary issue are not just wrong or misled, but evil incarnate… we’ll all lose. Big-time.

Some would say that ship has sailed, that we’re already lost. I hope and pray they’re wrong.

Come together. Right now. Over whomever. Please.

I don’t care as much about Election Day as the day after, and the four years after.

I have blogged quite a bit about the Blame Society over the years. And yes, presidential politics have been a nasty, brutish sport since men wore wigs and stockings.

But if we come out of this nasty election with a nation split down the middle, and a government seemingly paralyzed as a result, Lord help us.

Will whoever wins find a Magic Key to get people on Capitol Hill working with the White House? Will the opposing party in general try to prevent the new (or re-elected) president from getting anything done, or try to find room for compromise?

So many folks are angry at The Evil Other Side that many others are scared to death of continued paralysis and inability to tackle serious problems, from the deficit to … well one of my last dead-trees editions of Bloomberg Businessweek has a black-and-red cover shouting ‘IT’S GLOBAL WARMING, STUPID” over a picture of flooded Manhattan.

We’re so busy trying to blame that we can’t seem to remember how to give-and-take, compromise and deal with issues that stare us in the proverbial face.

Just about every time I lay that out to folks, I’m looked at by some as some naive pathetic Kumbaya-singing wishy-washy flip-flopper.

I know better. I’m as damned angry as they are. But I’m angry at THEM, both sides, for letting it get to this point. To believe that Your Side is the Chosen Good Guys and anyone who doesn’t agree is evil — that is a new low we seem to have come to, in that we now all have, through the Internet, ady access to the carefully spun “facts” that buttress our biases and rain evil motives on those who dare disagree.

Imagine if the Founding Fathers had Facebook and anonymous comment systems to fling THEIR mud. Would we still have a functioning country today?

Do we now? And who do you blame for that? More importantly, what are you willing to do to make it better?

I don’t believe people are turned off to politics because they believe all of them are lying, cheating scoundrels — well, some are, of course — as much as they’ve thrown up their hands at all involved for being childish clenched-fist whiners who see political (and probably financial) advantage in doing more blaming than solving, more chest-beating than sitting down at a table with the Other Side and seeing if there’s room for … gasp … COMPROMISE!

That there are huge lines in Florida and Ohio, hours-long waits for folks wanting to vote is a TRAVESTY, whether you believe it’s Your Side or The Other Side behind it. It’s one thing to struggle with a massive storm’s aftermath and its impact on the voting process, but playing politics with people’s right to vote should be unconscionable, no matter what way your personal political weathervane spins.

So. Day after the election. Win or lose. What will YOU be saying, in person or at your keyboard?

If that depends on who wins, than I daresay that mindset is as much the problem as … who wins.

IMHO (In My Not-So-Humble Opinion;-)

A Pledge to Reject the ‘Blame Society’

Fear, anger, frustration, disgust — or all of the above?

All of the above is winning in our latest KTVZ.COM Poll about folks’ prime emotions regarding the awful display of partisan bickering amid the debt crisis on Capitol Hill.

How do we break the seemingly endless, for-sure vicious downward spiral of juvenile finger-pointing, breast-beating and general lack of maturity in our politics?

As usual for a reporter, I don’t have the answers. But also like any good reporter, I want to at least help make sure we’re asking the right questions. That we’re not framing the issue the way the partisans on either side of the fight want us to. To at least open the mind to some different thoughts of our own, not those the folks who trout out selected red herrings want us to react – of pure emotion rather than logic.

Some of what’s below is no doubt from the Department of Redundancy Department. And I have little doubt that some will “see through” (heh) my fervent desires and brand me as a naive Pollyanna who loves the idea of a group hug and “Kumbaya,” who doesn’t understand how politics “really” works, etc. I know all the platitudes: “Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything,” “moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue,” etc.

Amazing how we’ve allowed “compromise,” “negotiation” and “moderation” to become dirty words in the eyes, minds and even hearts of too many. That it seems many would rather see the country devolve into civil war than “give an inch” on their “principles.”

Anyway, I pounded this out the other morning after another of those chain-letter e-mails with a pledge to “save our country” made the rounds. If you agree with much of it, great. If it makes your blood boil in “he just doesn’t get it!” fashion, oh well. But it’s from my heart AND my head, and … hope it strikes a chord or two:

A Pledge to Reject the ‘Blame Society’

1. I will not re-circulate every e-mail suggestion for ‘fixing’ Congress – or anything else – knowing that simple answers are for simpletons and emotionally based, feel-good wholesale changes usually are proposals that at least have unconsidered tradeoffs and downsides — not to mention being “dead on arrival” politically.

2. I will honor the Founding Fathers and their wisdom, but not believe they were ‘literalists’ whose every word, deed and writing was to remain unchanged forever more. They did not envision our world, and while their founding principles should always be embraced, to not advance or change to reflect today’s realities would be like hewing to every element of the Old Testament, literally.

3. I will reject extremism in ALL its forms, and will be wary of anyone who claims to have a corner on “the truth you won’t hear anywhere else,” because I know they are appealing to my heart and spleen and asking those to overrule my head, and they want me to believe “our side” has all the answers and good folks, and “their side” is wrong and dumb and evil, their every idea is to be rejected without consideration, etc.

4. I will encourage our elected and appointed leaders to truly consider ALL good ideas – even those from the other side of the aisle – and in tough times to resist engaging in the “he started it!” kindergarten whines that we all should have left behind in kindergarten.

5. I will point out cognitive dissonance whenever and wherever I see it, knowing that while all of us would like to have our cake, eat it too, not get fat and have someone else pay the bill, I left the world of fairytales behind at a young age and should not return to it in my adulthood.

6. I will stop letting anecdotal awfulness — the $1,000 hammer, the wayward cop brought up on charges – color my perception of my government, which like any large enterprise with a huge customer base will never please everyone, and who really does only one thing badly in widespread fashion — getting the message out of the simple, good things it does every day. It will remain in damaging paralysis when those seeking to bring it down or get their person/party in are allowed to paint government as evil personified. Government is a reflection of us and our strengths and weaknesses, and to assign it larger blame – or credit – than it deserves just makes it harder to get anything good done.

7. I will reject extreme “throw the bums out” term limits for what they are – a bid by those driven by anger, vengeance or political opportunism to turn from career politicians to perpetually amateur politicians who can be even more manipulated by career bureaucrats who really pull the gears of government, and lobbyists who are looking out for their companies’ and causes’ self-interests. As they should.

8. I will embrace true negotiation and compromise – not on principles, but on policies – and always call on our elected and appointed leaders to be specific about what they would do and have done, rather than waste our valuable time telling us all the bad things about their foes. Tell us why you are good, not why your foe is bad, because we have a brain and can judge and choose and remember all by ourselves, and the personal attacks and negativity say more about you than it does them. I will ask our leaders to be specific, be detailed and be honest about your proposals, and don’t appeal solely to our emotions or misguided wish for simple answers to complicated problems.

9. I will not  blame every bad thing that happens in my life or the world on our president or Congress (or local elected officials for that matter) and will not give them credit for every good thing, either. Much – in fact, most – of your life is beyond their control, thankfully.

10. I will not take comfort or joy in my foes’ failures or tragedies, will reject the notion that civil war or Judgement Day are things to eagerly anticipate (because our side will be proven right and the others will “get theirs”), and will try to walk a mile in my opponents’ shoes whenever possible. Because the only way to advance as a community, nation and people is to move forward together and leave the bickering for the 5-year-olds in the back seat on a long vacation ride. And just like then, I will be the parent, and when the ‘stop touching me!’ and ‘he started it!’ whines come from the ‘children’ in our ride toward the future, we will be the parent, and say, ‘I don’t care who started it — I’m finishing it!’ And I will cling fervently to the belief, hope and prayer that such a mindset truly is our only hope of peace and progress.

My Words Are My Children

My wonderful wife (my biggest blessing for 28 years now) and I have never been blessed with children. Cats, yes, and they’re great, but… I once in a while think all the many thousands of words and stories I’ve written are my children, in a way, sent out into the world – good, bad, rushed or well-composed – to have their impact and make their way.

And much like kids, sometimes my words and articles do me proud, and other times they turn on me, when I haven’t given them the time and attention they deserve. Fortunately, with words, there can be do-overs of sorts, but on the Net, older versions can live on, so it pays to be careful;-)

I also think of the younger folks I work with – whom I see, alas, far more than my real family, living in other areas – as the people I can affect and influence into the future, bit by bit, answering their questions, editing their scripts (sometimes over-editing, for sure) and just generally showing an insane work ethic and things like that, that hopefully can rub off on them in positive ways as they make their own lives and careers happen.

So through a LinkedIn post I found this – the Tao of Journalism pledge – and it was so nice to see others in this media-blaming, government-blaming world try to find a common set of principles that are simple, not high-falutin and easy to understand. Honesty, transparency, accuracy – the things I cling to, to get by on a harried news day – all summed up nicely.

I hope things like that catch fire, and as I’ve written many a time, that we move beyond the Blame Society and the finger-pointing to find all things we do agree on.

America doesn’t stand for your side ‘winning.’ but listening to the other side, incorporating its best ideas and coming together to move forward. If that sounds like a blowhard politician, so be it. If we lived up to such a mission, rather than paying it lip service, maybe we’d get something done rather than simply know who to blame for what isn’t getting done.

Those who feed on fear, hate and divisiveness don’t deserve your time or attention.  The trolls who grab the microphone to, in essence, spit on those who provides it should be called out for what they are. Those who believe their political side, their view are the One True Way for a perfect society are misleading themselves and being used.

In My Humble Opinion.

Yep, if all of us only hated those who are filled with hate, we wouldn’t have a kumbaya Utopia – ain’t gonna happen – but at least we could have civil, rational discussions about very tough problems.

There I go again, off on the same ol’ tangent. Oh well, even if no one (or few) are listening, it feels good to state it.

Maybe one day there’ll be THAT kind of political movement, and we can get over the idea that any one politician will transform society. It’ll have to be us. And that’s a good thing.

‘I don’t know how you sleep at night…’: Journalism Ethics 101

Wow, what a week. Awful, tragic news — and editorial judgment calls for our news staff.

On the one hand, it’s ‘exciting’ and energizing to have breaking news to cover, in an area where we blessedly have relatively little major crime, etc. compared to bigger cities.

Still, it can be frustrating when people think we make every decision based on whose lives we can invade or pain we can exploit.

It’s not true, but to be defensive in such situations only makes a difficult situation worse.

When someone dies in an awful way, we need to try to tell how they died – but more importantly, how they lived.

We don’t, contrary to the critics’ claims, go ringing up or knocking on the door of every crime victim, stick a camera and mike in their face and say, ‘How do you feel?”

The worst calls I’ve ever made are to folks in pain. I always hope and pray a family friend or representative will answer the phone, that those dealing with tragedy have been helped by others who are taking our inevitable calls for a photo, word of a fund in their name, etc.

A Bend man died this week in an example of the awfully named term, ‘Freak accident’ – a tree slammed down on the van in which he was sleeping. A Roseburg TV station kindly shared photos clearly taken hours after the discovery (tree was off the van and cut up etc.)

Still, it was shocking. Not graphic or lurid, but jolting.

We used the photos. A few close friends asked ‘have you no shame,’ etc.

After a day, I removed the photos from our front page. I can always see both sides of these things. The image was known, and to put his smiling face there again seemed right, and we followed with another story talking to friends about how he lived.

Then there’s the awful possible murder-suicide in Bend.

Facebook has two sides for people – the private one only friends can see, and the public one anyone can see using a search box.

We found two heartbreakingly normal photos of the family on the mother’s and father’s Facebook pages.

We used them and soon heard from a very upset family member.

I tried, best I could, not to get defensive, and to explain why we felt they were OK and even good to use – again, as I say, to show how folks live, not just how they die.

It didn’t end with a slammed-down phone, so I should be grateful.

But then came the note today, saying “shame on you” and asking why we felt it was OK to put the photos (and names – hey, we waited almost a full day to use the names, when property tax records indicated the homeowners and the paper felt fine running that right away – we waited until police issued the names to be sure family members were notified first.)

But Facebook is a public source of info, and we wanted to share MORE than names – to tell who these people are. In the immediate aftermath of tragedy, that is a very difficult time to glean those details, and we’re more successful in some cases than others.

But I hope that, God forbid, I ever face such a tragedy, I’ll understand why the media is doing what it’s doing – unless we/they cross the line, and then I also hope I’d make my point without lashing out. But it’s human, and we all are that.

We don’t revel in others’ pain, nor wish to intrude on a family’s grief. I have been deleting many comments that go too far in supposition or worse (man, there are some scary folks out there). But … it’s tough, and we have to try to be both sensitive and consistent. I hope and pray most folks understand that.

The ‘right’ to use info or a photo or the like doesn’t always clash with the issue of ‘rightness’ (propriety), but it can. Just now, police passed along the family’s request to remove info gleaned from public Facebook pages from the story. They are distraught, but I can’t help thinking they have far bigger things to be distraught about.

These were not damning or in any way negative pieces of information about the family – in fact, they were heartbreakingly normal and upbeat. But of course, I removed them, after touching base with the news director on his call on the issue.

But as I said, it’s ‘right’ vs. ‘rightness.’ Tough balancing act for all concerned in such terrible cases.

May you never be in such a situation – but may you also think about it whenever you make info publicly available, intentionally or otherwise. As society and the definition of privacy evolves, maybe, just maybe it’ll be less of an issue. I’m not expecting it, though.

The blessed – and ever-shrinking – middle ground

Nowadays, compromise is out of fashion – shrillness, finger-pointing and finding who to blame for our troubles is, alas, the way to go.

I just read a great, reasoned, ‘middle ground’ posting on the still-burning timber/wildfire issue.

I hold such postings precious, because it shows a mind is at work, rather than reflexes (yes, I’d use the term knee-jerk, but calling people ‘jerks’ just goes back to the name-calling, finger-pointing that gets so very old).

President Jimmy Carter was branded as a “waffler” because he refused to take a stand and hold to it, no matter what new facts came into view. That is sad.

President Obama no doubt is getting intense heat already for backing the proposal for a mosque – an education center, really – near, not at Ground Zero.

A former, fired Bend city manager told me once – before he was fired by the council, I recall – that ‘friends come and go, but enemies attract.’ And when you’re the Leader of the Free World, that’s more true than for anyone else on the planet. Everyone can find something a president does to make them mad. Put it all together, and it’s … politics as usual.

We have too few discussions and far too many arguments these days — situations where the debate becomes so shrill, everyone is talking or waiting to talk (or interrupt) and usually so busy getting in their talking points, listening to the other side doesn’t seem to be happening.

Imagine such a discussion going much slower, calmer, the one not talking REALLY listening and even occasionally saying — gasp — “you have a good point, there — I hadn’t thought of it that way.”

I know, I know: Dream on.

Immigration is the grand example of the Blame Society at its zenith. We were the ‘good immigrants’ who followed the laws (bet there were a lot fewer of them those days, too). These are the “bad immigrants,” who are all (there’s the flaw) breaking the law, taking jobs from hard-working Americans, filling our schools and hospitals and refusing to learn English and and and….

Sigh.

Yes, put up a better wall. (How about an electric fence, machine-gun turrets and a moat with gators?) But don’t blame them for our lack of one. And don’t think the images of mass deportation, families torn asunder, etc. wouldn’t hurt our country – not just its reputation, but its belief in what we’re here for, how we’re a bright, shining beacon to the oppressed. Now some want to change the rule that says if you’re born here, you’re a citizen. Is anyone thinking through what that really means, other than that we’re, as usual, “mad as hell and we’re not going to take it any more”?)

Acting out of pure emotion is a slippery slope to … well, we just might find out one of these days, much to our regret.

The Blame Society: It’s All the Rage (Unfortunately)

I Googled the term first. It’s not really out there. I should write a book. But I’ll start with this:

“The Blame Society: The Real Threat to Civilization”

Or something like that.

I get so sick of it – and not because I deal with the flamers, trolls, venters and other folks who abuse free forums, and scream ‘censorship’ if not allowed to spew (I tell them, ‘Go to Rants and Raves.’)

No, I don’t blame them. (Get it?) Well, not entirely. One frequent poster who rankles my nerves refers to most folks as “sheeple.” Prone to want to blame someone or something — politicians, Greedy Big Business, and of course, today’s big Blamee, Illegal Immigrants — for the problems of society.

Taken to the extreme, it seems these people are saying, “If everyone just thought like me, the world would be perfect.”

It almost doesn’t matter whether they believe it. The venom factor in today’s society is so high, it’s approaching global warming status. (Oh my, there’s another fine controversy. It reminds me of abortion, or the Middle East, or name any war – a never-ending, no-win blamefest.)

Compromise has never been a dirtier word. Why discuss when you can argue? Why listen when you can make others listen? Why solve problems when you really succeed by stirring up our most base passions to … blame the other side for all of our problems?

It is so maddening, so frustrating, so exasperating.

So who do we blame for this state of affairs? Do we look in the mirror, or smash it and use the broken pieces to cut our competition?

I’ve said it before — I’m a moderate, the right-wing talk show host’s worst enemy. But I listen to left-wing talk show hosts, and they make me mad, too. I don’t WANT msnbc to be one-sided, as if to counter-balance the apparent (to them) one sidedness of Fox News. Yes, I believe CNN tries to go down the middle of the road, and probably gets villified for doing so.

In a no-win Blame Society, our favorite hobby is to tear down those who disagree with us and send money or love notes to those on “our side.” To just wait until the next election to throw the bums out, to send a message that… what’s the message again? That we want it go back to the way it was before, under “our party’s” time of rule?

Times are tough, and that breeds anger and fear — and the powers that be want to channel that anger and fear to achieve their aims. Whatever happened to thinking for yourself, to calm, rational discussion, to being open to the notion that the other side has a point worth considering? No, that’s now seen as a sign of weakness, a chink in the armor, a chance to prevail over the weak wafflers, the Jimmy Carters, the … Obamas, of course, in some eyes.

A plague on both your houses? Vote for None of the Above? Where does that get us? Does a third party or independent candidate just hand an elected seat to the other side? Is that what it’s come down to?

The Blame Society. I blame it for our ills. I blame those who propogated it for our inability to reach consensus any more. I pray for a way to move beyond the blame game, to find some structure, online, on-air or in person, to realize that negotiation, give-and-take, compromise isn’t hopeless Pollyanna kumbaya. It’s our only hope of survival.

It’s a mindset as real and even more valuable than the one we’ve allowed ourselves to be trapped in today.

Stop blaming. Start listening. Realize anyone who sells you a simple answer knows better, and is playing you like a Stradivarius.

Take the best of all positions and mold a new one. Sell it through the benefits, not the fears.

Who’s with me?

How can we move forward – not sideways?

I often get myself in serious trouble with the anti-government folks on KTVZ.COM’s article comments by saying that media – or more precisely, journalists – like government, can’t “win” these days – that we’re damned if we do, damned if we don’t and damned if we can’t decide, that people believe we’re in our professions for the lowest of instincts (“Sensationalism!” “Ego trips!”) and not for “the greater, community good.”

So please permit me to expound a bit on what I mean (otherwise known as “digging myself a deeper hole”;-)

Of course, there are “winners” or “losers” in both professions (with us it’s about ratings and ad revenues, with politicians it’s votes and campaign contributions). Does that make us inherently bad, not to be trusted? I humbly submit, the answer is “no.”

To be sure, neither government nor the news media have a rosy image these days. We’re seen as exploiters, as people who don’t care about the impacts we have on everyday folks’ lives, who “use” others for our own means. If media would just expose the government’s (and big business’s, heck, everyone’s!) wrongdoing and nasty doings – if term limits would just “throw the bums out” – we’d live in a nirvana, a utopia – and woe befalls anyone who doubts those views.

To be certain, there are some in our professions – like every profession – who live up, or more precisely down, to those broad-brush stereotypes. But many others who try to do our best, and for the most part, are worthy of respect and attention. Separating the two is easier said than done. Your “bum” could be my “hero,” and vice versa.

But it’s hard not to say the current low opinion of public servants and reporters/editors is also a matter of hypocrites playing the public’s heart strings like a Stradivarius. Many things bring this to mind – the conservative talk show hosts who dominate the airwaves but rail against the “mainstream media” (if you’re on 20 hours a week or more, why aren’t you now “mainstream”?) and, of course, against the current administration as well.

If there’s one thing I appreciate about Glenn Beck, for example – despite the fact the few times he’s talked about something I have personal knowledge of, he got the facts wrong – is that he says he was railing against the White House policies before the current occupant. Portland radio host Lars Larson also does the same thing, sometimes confounding those who expect him to toe any particular conservative line by saying “this issue is different.” That’s right, think for yourselves, people!

Other commentators bemoan the ever-higher levels of not just partisanship, but poison partisanship, in which all the ills of one’s own life and that of our communities can be blamed on … somebody. Illegal aliens. Government bureaucrats.  Politicians who raise taxes for fun and just don’t listen to the people (as if the people all speak with a unified voice!)

I also get myself in constant trouble for playing the role of devil’s advocate – of saying the answers are not as simple as some would have you believe, that there are unintended consequences to most “solutions” (Sheriff Joe’s Arizona “tent city” jail comes to light – if it were that great, and not a lawsuit magnet, why wouldn’t other law enforcers follow in their footsteps? Because, of course, they are egotistical empire-builders!)

Which brings me to an idea I’ve debated in my mind and sometimes, with others, for many a year – the idea made possible by technology of moving to a more true democracy, rather than a republic, one in which the Internet affords all of us an opportunity to weigh in on and help make decisions on public issues large and small. If we dare.

But would a direct Internet government short-circuit the political egos and the lobbyists greasing the skids (and their own palms) to get what they want? Or would it turn into something like Wikipedia – so complex that, while anyone can take part, only a relatively small clique of participants do much of the heavy lifting?

Or worse yet, would every issue become one where WE are played like a Stradivarius – where community decisions ultimately are decided based in large measure on who has the best spokesman, the guy/gal with the best teeth/hair promoting their position on this issue or that? A mix of “American Idol” and C-SPAN, fighting for attention and participation in a celeb culture?

Health care reform is a prime example – a good majority of the public say we want “reform,” but the definition and consensus is as elusive as Bigfoot – and just as dangerous, should we encounter it. The devil is always, always in the many, many details.

So how about this – anyone can have a voice (oh, the cacophony!) in this direct online government, but only those who pass a test on knowledge about the subject can weigh in with their votes? Again, the devil’s advocate in me sees big trouble with that – who writes the test, who sees a slant in one direction or another on or between the lines, etc. etc.

Besides, who among us has the time or inclination to read 1,000-page bills on every issue we expect government to address? And what will those “executive summaries” leave out? No, we want to leave it to government to figure it out.

So, we’re stuck with a situation where many of us, for example, hate Congress but love our congressman or woman. Where we blame government and the media for things like the recession – saying we were in cahoots to rah-rah growth and bubbles that always burst, and didn’t warn (the media’s role) or prepare us for/head off (government’s role) the inevitable tailspin.

 No wonder we’re so frustrated! We want change, but break down over whether this or that “change” is what “we” meant.

 If I have any hope, it’s that a cause will emerge at some point to find a hero of moderates and a platform, not of issues, but of how to reasonably, sensibly approach them – that extremists from either end of the spectrum are equally distrusted, as they should be – that we prize, teach and promote critical thinking of the kind that can keep us from becoming anyone’s “sheeple.”

If I created a social network promoting such a viewpoint, would it bring attention, scorn or derision? (Or apathy?) People trying to tear it down, or those trying to build it up and advance something beyond today’s petty wars of attrition and frustration?

I must also speak up on behalf of that much-maligned journalistic goal of objectivity. Everyone has an opinion, so let’s have it out in the open! I weigh in at times, with the comments on our Website, but I try like heck to keep them out of the news articles I and others write.

People need impartial summations of the various views/proposals before us, and if that’s so-called “he said she said” journalism, I plead guilty to this artificially created “crime.” I don’t want newspaper editorials to tell me what to think, much less the articles in print, on the air or online. Commentary, clearly labeled, is wonderful, marvelous. But in “straight news” stories, please just provide me the information and let me make up my own mind!

As usual, I sure don’t have the answers. But as a reporter, my goal always has been to ask the right questions, and not be fooled by simple answers to complex questions. And to ask follow-ups, and not start writing until I understand the issue well enough to relate it to others, in as simple a manner as possible.

I guess it all boils down, in the end, to whether you think the media, the government or anything else is made up of fallible, all-too-human people who are just trying to get through the day/week/their lives, who have good intentions and motives, and sometimes (Frequently? All the time?) screw up – or if you see “them” instead as evil, lazy, manipulative, etc., etc.

If Anne Frank, before the Nazis cut short her life, can write that she still believes, after all, that “people are good, at heart,” why can’t we? Is that really seen as childhood naiveté, rather than a sane, simple way to go through life – not gullible, but not stone-hearted either?

Isn’t there a balance? Isn’t there a middle ground? There has to be. Or we’re sunk.

In a way, what the Internet has done is empowered ALL of us to be journalists – to research and sift through the information, apply critical thinking skills and decide for ourselves if there’s a position/proposal we can get behind on the issues of the day.

As Pogo the comic-strip once famously said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” Can we admit that to ourselves, and try to learn from it?

Somewhere in America… Election Day

Odds are, this happeed somewhere….

“I’m backing Obama,” says Mr. A.

“Why?” says Mr. B.

“Because his name is five letters long.”

“Huh?”

“Look, Bush is four letters long – nice and short, compared to that seven-letter Clinton fella. Just like his daddy, nice and short.”

“Yeah, so…?”

“Well, McCain – that’s six letters. Poor headline writers. Think of all the wasted ink and paper!”

“And Obama…”

“Yep, just five letters. That’s fine, one more letter. That’s change I can believe in. But from four letters to six? That’s too much. Wild. Radical. Not gonna do it. Wouldn’t be prudent.”

“Yeah, but what about syllables? We haven’t had a three-syllable president since… well, when, Kennedy?”

“Hadn’t thought of that. Hmmmm…. that could be a reason to vote for him.”

(Randon thought inspired by the persistent realization that you cannot require an informed vote, or make someone pass a test first. They can back or bounce you based on your smile, your hairstyle or just “something about you.” Or how long your name is…)

‘Miracle on the Hudson’ – next stop, the Potomac

I love dramatic good-news stories, and they can never happen often enough.

But sometimes they are also miraculous in their timing.

I’m sure I’m one of many bloggers who are looking at what is about to happen, and just happened, and trying to make some grand connection, as in, “Here’s what I’d say Tuesday just after noon if I were … him.”

So let me give it a shot… at the risk of focusing far too much attention on this connection and beating an analogy to … well, you know:

We are here today in what some might call a miraculous turn of events.

And others would say we worked hard to make it here, so it’s only logical.

Can logic and miracles co-exist? Of course they can.

They sure did aboard U.S. Airways Flight 1549 last Thursday afternoon.

A group of people who had nothing in common but where they were and a desire to fly where they were going were aboard that plane, thinking it was just another day.

At the helm, a pilot of much experience and training, well-respected, on a cold but clear day, going through the checklists, which no doubt don’t have on them “check for big flocks of Canada geese in the area.”

Flying, to some, is an act of faith, as is living. To others, it’s just a thing to get you somewhere.

But this day, this plane and those birds intersected in a path no supercomputer or aviation expert could have predicted with any certainty.

Those birds hit those engines, both of them, and blew them out – both of them – a flight attendant said it was as quiet as a library.

This at 3,000 feet over the Bronx.

The pilot with all that experience had a good clue exactly what happened, and his options were limited. The air control tower made suggestions – ones he rejected, knowing the great danger they would pose to folks on the ground, not to mention the people he was tasked with flying safely to their destination.

And so, he took the least unthinkable path – to the water – with so little time, he couldn’t throw the handy ‘ditch switch’ and seal the bottom of the plane.

No time – less than 4 minutes from bird hit to … well, we all know the story.

In a busy place where cameras follow seemingly every bird or Hudson River tugboat, a plane became a boat – and 155 souls on board, many if not most praying what they feared might be their last prayer, lived to tell the tale.

By all accounts, there was little if any panic aboard Flight 1549. Ferries and boats came to their rescue, and thankfully didn’t have far to go. The river, normally busy with boats, had been clear when the plane came down. There was a jolt, but no worse than some rough landings many of us have experienced.

The plane, full of fuel, didn’t burst into flames. It didn’t sink. It’s crew kept a well-intentioned passenger from opening a third, back door that would have let the water rush in.

A lot of things went right that day – and to separate the divine from the proper procedures, training and what one must make sure to add, the best in many everyday Americans would be missing the point entirely.

We are divine in our everday lives, if we just stop to think. It shouldn’t take a plane falling from the sky in miraculous fashion to remind us that God wants us to fly again.

Now, let’s see how much of what we learned last week fits what we’re here for today.

Let’s imagine, just for a moment, that we all are passengers on that jet plane – a plane that no doubt has seen it’s ups and downs, but is surely still airworthy – and unbenknownst to anyone snoozing through the familiar emergency lecture at the start, pointing to the exit doors, yadda yadda yadda – they’re about to learn it’s seaworthy too – in a pinch. That those seats as floatation cushions really do come in handy once in a while.

But many of us, probably most of us live our lives for granted – until we don’t.

Sort of like the millions of Americans, many of whom no doubt took their jobs, their homes, their everyday debt-saddled existence for granted – until they couldn’t.

So, when our airship of state gets into hot water, the people who live to criticize, analyze and place blame knock the pilot, the crew – everyone but ourselves. That’s no way to safely land an airplane, or get a country called U.S. of A. through some in-flight turbulence.

The doomsayers say we’re gonna crash, we’re gonna die. Others pray. And the folks up front try to stay calm, cool and collected as they choose between several not-so-great options.

They don’t need a perfect option, just one with the best odds of survival.

When they pulled that plane out of the Hudson over the weekend, they bottom was all torn and shredded – shredded metal on a plane full of fuel. Imagine what one spark would have done.

Miracles do happen. We can never be reminded enough.

But sometimes, just sometimes, God helps us make our own miracles – through training, wise choices, prayer and working together – as a bunch of people on a plane, who didn’t know each other from Adam or Eve.

But those who don’t believe the hand of God was helping put that series of blessed coincidences in line, like a line of lights on a runway, are fooling themselves.

Folks, we face some really tough challenges in the coming days, weeks, months and years. My critics deride me as the self-annointed ‘messiah’ who thinks he has all the answers and can talk any problem to solution.

But you, my fellow Americans, are smarter than the critics. You’re not looking for holy redemption from the White House – just someone who puts your interests ahead of the special ones, who does the very best he can – who is willing to change course and bear the wrath of those who claim that’s a wishy-washy flip-flop – who puts all his training and skills and, yes, oratory to the best use possible. And who levels with the American people, even if it means answering a reporter’s nasty question with nothing but the truth.

My friends, I don’t know if our bumpy flight the past couple of years has killed our engines, but I know we can soar again, to new heights, if we just believe in each other, and that with God’s will, we can overcome our troubles. It’s about having faith that the pilot will do what he can, but knowing it’s not all in his hands, or in God’s, but in each one of ours, as well.

A man who was elected to this job four times is one worth quoting, about fear being the enemy. Because fear begets fear, but hope begets hope. There are no magic solutions to our problems, be they education, health care, the housing or financial crisis. There is only hard work, listening to good people making strong proposals, and taking the best of those ideas and testing them out.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is your new captain speaking. It’s an honor to serve you and to know that, with the help of our fine crew – and all of you – we’re going to make it through these storm clouds and, with God as our co-pilot, fly higher than ever before. 

So get those cameras ready – we have some mighty fine sights to see, up ahead, through the clouds.

Welcome aboard. Oh, and one more thing – sorry, but no more free in-flight lunches. We never could afford them. We were just fooling ourselves.

The party’s not over – not by a longshot. We just can’t make excuses and duck out before the check comes any more.