Here's something I wrote in 1994 as president of the National Association of Real Estate Editors (NAREE), which was picked up for the Freedom Forum desk calendar for 1995 (April 11).
More than ever, it applies today.
"Business people assume that if we (the press) are not advocates, we are therefore adversaries. We ask the tough questions not because we are opponents, but because the questions need to be asked."
Contrary to what a certain politician claims these days, journalists are not "the enemy of the people." Rather, they are friends, whose duty is to expose lies and to spread truth.
Monday, April 29, 2019
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
Writer's Guidelines
So you want to be a writer.
Fuhgeddabowdit, as we say in New Jersey, and don't quit your day job.
First question: Do you want to be a writer, or do you want to write? The two are not the same.
A better question: Do you feel compelled to write, to put words on paper (or in a computer)? Are there stories inside you screaming to get out, even as they resist every effort on your part to help them?
Now, if you still want to drag these stories out and put them on paper, I am now (metaphorically) going to give you all the equipment you need to be a writer.
Here's a pencil.
Now go away and leave me alone.
If you'd rather use a typewriter or a computer, you're on your own. Use whatever works for you, and ignore what anyone else says.
Including me.
It comes down to this: People write because they must; they are driven to it by some inner force (or even an outer force -- nonphysical). Sometimes a story will gestate for years somewhere in a person's inner spirit world, and then when it's ready, it will demand to get out and onto a printed page.
It doesn't matter whether a person uses a pen, a pencil, a computer or an old-fashioned mechanical typewriter. Each person must find the method that works for him or her.
The bottom line is this: Writing is hard work. Use the method that works for you. Be patient. And keep at it.
Of course, none of the above answers the question, What shall I write about? Fiction? Commentary? Journalistic reporting of factual life? Politics? Straight news or analysis?
Many writers begin as journalists, where they learn the mechanics or grammar, punctuation, style and spelling, and how to interview a person who has a story to tell. Then they put all that together for a newspaper or magazine story that is basically factual and sometimes interpretive.
But fiction? That can come later, if at all. Even then, some of the best of American novelists were terrible at spelling, punctuation and spelling. Among those, reportedly, are Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald. But they were great story tellers and the rest is what editors are for. Far better, however, to learn and use the generally accepted standards of grammar, punctuation and spelling so that your new submissions won't annoy the editors who will brand you as a neophyte whose prose isn't worth reading.
Journalism and fiction writing are separate skills, even though they both use similar skills, just as house painters and portrait artists both use brushes and colorful liquids.
As for journalism, remember that a reporter's guideline -- if not an article of faith -- is that politicians lie, some more blatantly than others. But lying to a journalist doesn't matter, because the reporter will take down, record and forward whatever it is that the politician says or does, without being judgemental as to the truth or falsity of the politician's comments. The journalist will, however, obtain responses from experts and from other political types and report their comments also, balancing the news story and setting it up so readers can decide for themselves the truth or falsity of the comments from each side.
As a young reporter asked me many years ago, "Did you ever get the feeling when working on a story that somebody on one of the sides is lying to you?"
"Of course," I said. "Maybe they both are, but it's not our job to decide which. We report both sides and readers decide where the truth is."
There comes a time, however, when a politician's lies are so blatant, so extreme and so often perpetrated that it's appropriate and even essential that members of the news media use the L-word and document the frequent falsehoods of what a politician or government type says.
In short, lying to a reporter doesn't matter, but lying to the people does, and it's journalism's duty to expose that behavior, even at the risk of verbal insult and abuse from the politician.
And unlike many politicians and government types, reporters have tough skins, and a flood of personal abuse doesn't phase them. They let it slide off as they continue to take notes on what the politician says, then report these comments to the public.
A good reporter is neutral and accurate, passing on to readers and viewers information they need to know to make informed decisions as voters. Truth is the people's friend, and lies are the enemy.
Fuhgeddabowdit, as we say in New Jersey, and don't quit your day job.
First question: Do you want to be a writer, or do you want to write? The two are not the same.
A better question: Do you feel compelled to write, to put words on paper (or in a computer)? Are there stories inside you screaming to get out, even as they resist every effort on your part to help them?
Now, if you still want to drag these stories out and put them on paper, I am now (metaphorically) going to give you all the equipment you need to be a writer.
Here's a pencil.
Now go away and leave me alone.
If you'd rather use a typewriter or a computer, you're on your own. Use whatever works for you, and ignore what anyone else says.
Including me.
It comes down to this: People write because they must; they are driven to it by some inner force (or even an outer force -- nonphysical). Sometimes a story will gestate for years somewhere in a person's inner spirit world, and then when it's ready, it will demand to get out and onto a printed page.
It doesn't matter whether a person uses a pen, a pencil, a computer or an old-fashioned mechanical typewriter. Each person must find the method that works for him or her.
The bottom line is this: Writing is hard work. Use the method that works for you. Be patient. And keep at it.
Of course, none of the above answers the question, What shall I write about? Fiction? Commentary? Journalistic reporting of factual life? Politics? Straight news or analysis?
Many writers begin as journalists, where they learn the mechanics or grammar, punctuation, style and spelling, and how to interview a person who has a story to tell. Then they put all that together for a newspaper or magazine story that is basically factual and sometimes interpretive.
But fiction? That can come later, if at all. Even then, some of the best of American novelists were terrible at spelling, punctuation and spelling. Among those, reportedly, are Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald. But they were great story tellers and the rest is what editors are for. Far better, however, to learn and use the generally accepted standards of grammar, punctuation and spelling so that your new submissions won't annoy the editors who will brand you as a neophyte whose prose isn't worth reading.
Journalism and fiction writing are separate skills, even though they both use similar skills, just as house painters and portrait artists both use brushes and colorful liquids.
As for journalism, remember that a reporter's guideline -- if not an article of faith -- is that politicians lie, some more blatantly than others. But lying to a journalist doesn't matter, because the reporter will take down, record and forward whatever it is that the politician says or does, without being judgemental as to the truth or falsity of the politician's comments. The journalist will, however, obtain responses from experts and from other political types and report their comments also, balancing the news story and setting it up so readers can decide for themselves the truth or falsity of the comments from each side.
As a young reporter asked me many years ago, "Did you ever get the feeling when working on a story that somebody on one of the sides is lying to you?"
"Of course," I said. "Maybe they both are, but it's not our job to decide which. We report both sides and readers decide where the truth is."
There comes a time, however, when a politician's lies are so blatant, so extreme and so often perpetrated that it's appropriate and even essential that members of the news media use the L-word and document the frequent falsehoods of what a politician or government type says.
In short, lying to a reporter doesn't matter, but lying to the people does, and it's journalism's duty to expose that behavior, even at the risk of verbal insult and abuse from the politician.
And unlike many politicians and government types, reporters have tough skins, and a flood of personal abuse doesn't phase them. They let it slide off as they continue to take notes on what the politician says, then report these comments to the public.
A good reporter is neutral and accurate, passing on to readers and viewers information they need to know to make informed decisions as voters. Truth is the people's friend, and lies are the enemy.
Sunday, April 21, 2019
Watch Your Language
For many decades, children were admonished by their parents and teachers not to use four-letter Anglo-Saxon words, especially in what was called polite company. Radio, television and movies followed that policy, to the extent that when Clark Gable said, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" in the movie "Gone With the Wind" (released in 1938), the national reaction was shock.
To this day, television hesitates to broadcast what is deemed "foul language" no matter who utters it.
However, now they are faced with the issue of what to do when the president of the United States regularly and often uses such language in his public speeches and in his Twitter postings.
Do they broadcast the language that has long been called "street corner" language, unacceptable in polite company, even if such words are used by the leader of the nation?
Or do they carry his speeches in a five-second delay so that studio engineers can bleep out "foul language"? And does that amount to censorship?
Who, then, is to decide what is "acceptable" language and what is not? If the president of the United States frequently uses what the rest of society considers "dirty words," does that mean that such words are no longer to be considered "dirty"?
So what's a parent to do?
Children now can rightfully ask, "If it's OK for the president to use these words, why can't I?"
To this day, television hesitates to broadcast what is deemed "foul language" no matter who utters it.
However, now they are faced with the issue of what to do when the president of the United States regularly and often uses such language in his public speeches and in his Twitter postings.
Do they broadcast the language that has long been called "street corner" language, unacceptable in polite company, even if such words are used by the leader of the nation?
Or do they carry his speeches in a five-second delay so that studio engineers can bleep out "foul language"? And does that amount to censorship?
Who, then, is to decide what is "acceptable" language and what is not? If the president of the United States frequently uses what the rest of society considers "dirty words," does that mean that such words are no longer to be considered "dirty"?
So what's a parent to do?
Children now can rightfully ask, "If it's OK for the president to use these words, why can't I?"
Friday, April 12, 2019
Shall vs Will
The current debate in Washington is whether the president must provide information to Congress, or whether he can decide he may -- or may not -- answer a request for documentation on his tax returns and business dealings.
The law says a person "shall" provide information to a congressional panel. It does not say he has a choice of answering the request if he chooses to do so, depending on his mood at any given moment, and whether he thinks Congress ought to see it.
Any sixth grader knows that "shall" implies an obligation, while "will" means you may or may not do something but only if you are willing to do it.
Those who want to go back a few thousand years to when the Ten Commandments were issued will recognize the phrase "Thou shalt not ..."
That's not a request, but a command.
But as Trumpty Dumpty would say, "My words mean just what I choose them to mean." And how can we know what he means until he explains his chosen meaning to us?
A question now floating about the Internet is, "How dumb do these politicians think we are?"
One answer might be that they think members of the public are of equal intelligence levels as they, the politicians, are.
What does that tell you?
The law says a person "shall" provide information to a congressional panel. It does not say he has a choice of answering the request if he chooses to do so, depending on his mood at any given moment, and whether he thinks Congress ought to see it.
Any sixth grader knows that "shall" implies an obligation, while "will" means you may or may not do something but only if you are willing to do it.
Those who want to go back a few thousand years to when the Ten Commandments were issued will recognize the phrase "Thou shalt not ..."
That's not a request, but a command.
But as Trumpty Dumpty would say, "My words mean just what I choose them to mean." And how can we know what he means until he explains his chosen meaning to us?
A question now floating about the Internet is, "How dumb do these politicians think we are?"
One answer might be that they think members of the public are of equal intelligence levels as they, the politicians, are.
What does that tell you?
Thursday, April 11, 2019
Who is a Journalist?
The latest talking point on the TV talk shows and on editorial pages is whether Julian Assange is entitled to First Amendment protection as a journalist. The debate is whether he qualifies as a journalist or is simply a thief of stolen information.
The key issue seems to be that if the "journalist" acquired information illegally, he is subject to charges. But if he acquired it from another person and that other person stole it without help from the journalist, then freedom of the press holds. This can be a very sticky issue, and we'll hear a lot more about it in coming months, especially if Assange takes the case up the legal ladder, potentially all the way to SCOTUS.
For now, the issue seems to be whether Assange qualifies as a journalist and therefore has more rights than an "average person" has. But whether journalists do in fact have more rights than the so-called "average person" is for me not an issue. They don't. At the same time, journalists have no fewer rights than other people.
For me, the First Amendment speaks of "freedom of speech and of the press," so they are of a piece.
Complicating the whole issue is whether anyone with access to the Internet automatically qualifies as a journalist and therefore has additional rights and privileges that other people don't have. But if everyone has access to the Internet and can publish anything, then we are all journalists.
There are some laws, however, that do apply. Theft, for example, and libel. But even libel laws can be tricky when the person commented on is a public figure. Normally, to call a person a liar can be libelous. But if the allegation is true, provably true, and published without malice, then it's not libel. Similarly, the guy in the Oval Office slanders the news media when he calls them "the enemy of the people." But news media folk are in the public eye. And besides, they not only have thick skins, unlike the Chief Twit, but they also have a more powerful weapon -- access to a printing press. Or radio and television. Or the Internet. Or a pencil. Or the ability to make placards and march down the street in a protest. That, too, is guaranteed by the First Amendment.
All of which is to say this is a big story, and we'll hear more about it as the months go by.
The key issue seems to be that if the "journalist" acquired information illegally, he is subject to charges. But if he acquired it from another person and that other person stole it without help from the journalist, then freedom of the press holds. This can be a very sticky issue, and we'll hear a lot more about it in coming months, especially if Assange takes the case up the legal ladder, potentially all the way to SCOTUS.
For now, the issue seems to be whether Assange qualifies as a journalist and therefore has more rights than an "average person" has. But whether journalists do in fact have more rights than the so-called "average person" is for me not an issue. They don't. At the same time, journalists have no fewer rights than other people.
For me, the First Amendment speaks of "freedom of speech and of the press," so they are of a piece.
Complicating the whole issue is whether anyone with access to the Internet automatically qualifies as a journalist and therefore has additional rights and privileges that other people don't have. But if everyone has access to the Internet and can publish anything, then we are all journalists.
There are some laws, however, that do apply. Theft, for example, and libel. But even libel laws can be tricky when the person commented on is a public figure. Normally, to call a person a liar can be libelous. But if the allegation is true, provably true, and published without malice, then it's not libel. Similarly, the guy in the Oval Office slanders the news media when he calls them "the enemy of the people." But news media folk are in the public eye. And besides, they not only have thick skins, unlike the Chief Twit, but they also have a more powerful weapon -- access to a printing press. Or radio and television. Or the Internet. Or a pencil. Or the ability to make placards and march down the street in a protest. That, too, is guaranteed by the First Amendment.
All of which is to say this is a big story, and we'll hear more about it as the months go by.
Saturday, April 6, 2019
Thoughts Are Free
What gives you the right to say that? -- The Radical
Righteous
I was born with that right. -- The Liberal Leftist
It's not a
reporter's job to tell you what to think. Nor is it a commentator's job to tell
you how to think.
A reporter's
job is to provide information, and commentators will say what they think of it.
It's then up to you to decide what you think. An educator's job is to teach you
how to think.
Some folks
complain that the news media spend too much time telling viewers and readers
what to think rather than focusing on the classic Five Ws of journalism -- who,
what, where, when and why, plus how -- and expecting their audiences to do what they're told to
think.
If you feel
that way, change the channel, or buy a different newspaper, or track a
different Internet site, until you find one that you believe is neutral, or one
that agrees with your own already formed opinions.
That,
however, is not what a responsible citizen should do. (And yes, that's an opinion.)
But it is your right to listen only to those who reflect your opinions.
As it is,
many folks complain of bias and "fake news" in the media when what
they're really complaining about is hearing information that conflicts with
their previously formed views.
A caller
recently complained that something I wrote was not straight news but only
speculation, and should not have been written, much less published, because it
was only opinion and did not belong on a news page.
But the title
of the essay was "Speculation," the opening sentence used the word
"speculation," and the top of the page displayed the word
"Opinion."
Straight news
goes on Page One and on the news pages, and in broadcasting there are
journalists and there are commentators. There is room in the news industry for
both, and the Constitution guarantees the rights of both.
So if a
reader or a viewer does not like the coverage, or disagrees with the comments,
they can easily read a different publication or change the TV channel.
There are TV
operations that are clearly conservative in the views of their commentators,
others that are liberal, and still others that are neutral in their news
coverage. Broadcast TV operations tend
to be neutral in their news coverage, while their counterparts that operate via
cable often focus on liberal or
conservative opinions. Anyone surfing the channels can identify their preferred
viewpoints and stay with their selections. Otherwise, change the channel.
Ideally,
however, we should listen to the opinions and interpretations of others, even
if we disagree with them. Unfortunately, we are too often plagued with
political leaders who insist that we should agree with everything they say, and to
do as we're told.
I tried that
with my cat.
It didn't
work
Friday, April 5, 2019
Debt Be Not Proud
The federal budget deficit, now at $900 billion this year, will likely exceed $1 trillion in three years time, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and the total federal debt will nearly match total national output (GDP) in ten years.
Meanwhile, economic growth is slowing, according to several government agency reports, and will be closer to 2 percent this and will go below that next year. Last year, total output of goods and services rose at a 3 percent rate.
Watching all this, the Federal Reserve Board voted to keep its key target interest rate below 2.5 percent as a way to keep the overall economy steady but growing.
Even so, the president didn't like it, and insisted that the Fed should lower interest rates even more to boost the economy to his preferred 4 percent growth.
Separately, the Commerce Department said GDP increased 2.2 percent in the fourth quarter, down from 3.4 percent three months earlier.
And a study by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York said GDP growth for 2019 will be about 2 percent, lower than an earlier forecast.
The good news is that 196,000 people found new jobs in March, even as the unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.8 percent, according to the Commerce Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics. But the labor force participation rate, which most economists see as a more reliable statistical indicator of employment health, has been holding steady at about 63 percent for a year, and the ratio of workers to total population has been about 60 percent since last October.
So even though the labor market "remains strong," the Fed noted, "growth of economic activity has slowed" since the end of the year.
So what does it all mean? A "noticeable loss of momentum," to use the New York Fed's phrase, coupled with the government's sharp rise in spending, an increasing budget deficit and a total debt that will soon match production, could well mean serious trouble ahead.
Or it may not. Unlike a family, a business or a state, where spending more than income spells financial disaster, a nation can indulge in deficit spending and a rising debt for a long time without consequences because a nation owes itself.
As former Vice President Dick Cheney once put it, "Deficits don't matter."
Or do they?
Meanwhile, economic growth is slowing, according to several government agency reports, and will be closer to 2 percent this and will go below that next year. Last year, total output of goods and services rose at a 3 percent rate.
Watching all this, the Federal Reserve Board voted to keep its key target interest rate below 2.5 percent as a way to keep the overall economy steady but growing.
Even so, the president didn't like it, and insisted that the Fed should lower interest rates even more to boost the economy to his preferred 4 percent growth.
Separately, the Commerce Department said GDP increased 2.2 percent in the fourth quarter, down from 3.4 percent three months earlier.
And a study by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York said GDP growth for 2019 will be about 2 percent, lower than an earlier forecast.
The good news is that 196,000 people found new jobs in March, even as the unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.8 percent, according to the Commerce Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics. But the labor force participation rate, which most economists see as a more reliable statistical indicator of employment health, has been holding steady at about 63 percent for a year, and the ratio of workers to total population has been about 60 percent since last October.
So even though the labor market "remains strong," the Fed noted, "growth of economic activity has slowed" since the end of the year.
So what does it all mean? A "noticeable loss of momentum," to use the New York Fed's phrase, coupled with the government's sharp rise in spending, an increasing budget deficit and a total debt that will soon match production, could well mean serious trouble ahead.
Or it may not. Unlike a family, a business or a state, where spending more than income spells financial disaster, a nation can indulge in deficit spending and a rising debt for a long time without consequences because a nation owes itself.
As former Vice President Dick Cheney once put it, "Deficits don't matter."
Or do they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)