Journalism in the 21st Century

When silence isn't golden

2024-11-19T03:58:00.000-08:00

When I worked at a trucking magazine, Trump was President. I never had an opportunity to report on him, but shortly before I started, his apearance in one of the trucks we provided on the White House lawn became iconic.

Not everyone I worked with supported him, but I remained neutral, happy to have a job. Besides, what harm could he really cause? Look at him playfully mock honking, as excited as an eight year-old skipping school.

Flash forward to 2024. The world is aflame with wars and hunger and deforestation. Here in Connecticut, I worry about actual flames as wildfires blaze east of Hartford.

This is no time for silence.

When a famous science journalist I know spoke out against Trump and his followers, she was canned. Her carefully worded apology to readers made me want to scream, "Nooo! You were speaking the truth!"

For Trump 2.0 is not a cute photo op, whether he poses in a garbage truck or the fry station at McDonald's. Since we first saw him take office in January 2017, he has been multiply criminally convicted, demeaned women and minorities, cozied up to dictators, misogynists (hello, Elon) and bigots, and pretended to give a microphone a you-know-what.

Imagine such a person as your school principal, running the manufacturing plant or law firm. Done laughing? The thought is absurd. Now that King Tru-- I mean President Elect Trump -- is rejoining us, do we once again ignore his lack of clothes? For the Emperor has never had them -- you have just been afraid to say so.

Journalists must remain impartial, but as humans are we supposed to sit back and accept facism, criminality, cruelty, racism and misogyny? No. Morally, my science journalist example was a paragon, not a pratfall, in her rightful messaging. One cannot support those who would vote for an evil orangeman just because they want eggs to cost two bucks again.

Silencing brilliant journalists such as Laura Hellmuth or while we are talking, Olivia Nuzzi, will not reflect well in the light of history.

Photo: Wikimedia Commons, 2017 Pentagon

Evan Gershkovich at 100 Days: Press Club welcomes sister Danielle, former Iranian Captee Rezaian

2023-07-13T11:14:00.023-07:00

Not everyone has a journalist brother detained in Russia, but as Danielle Gershkovich said today, many of us have brothers.

Watching her speak at the National Press Club briefing (remotely) was even more moving than I had imagined it would be, in no small part for her composure and smile, her sweetness and calm in the face of unspeakable fear.

Joining her were longtime Iranian captee, Washington Post's Jason Rezaian, Paul Beckett, Washington Bureau Chief of the WSJ and Jason Conti, general counsel with Dow Jones and a lawyer on the detainee's case. NPC President Eileen O'Reilly moderated the panel, which included both emailed and live questions from assembled press and Club members.

Beckett began by sharing the power of the recent milestone, 100 days, memorialized on its front page. "Acknowledging the impact and reality" was punctuated by the milestone, Gershkovich's imprisonment following his March 29 apprehension on so-called espionage charges.

Rezaian said that authoritarian regimes--namely Russia, China and Iran-- "weaponize their legal system against people like me, like Evan." He said he's "convincing people that we have to be smarter about how we frame these stories."

The lawyer on the panel, Conti, brought in a surprisingly moving account of how he works to free Gershkovich. He said their firm makes it a priority to comfort the family as they maneuver the Russian system, which he says almost guarantees [an outcome] 100 percent in the Russians' favor. He and his firm are involved in a tedious process of appeals.

Danielle Gershkovich talked about the weekly letters she receives from her brother. Asked how she receives them, she simply said they are photographed and sent to her, though it is unclear if she meant on or offline. "I got a letter yesterday and it changed my mood."

Throughout the hour she showed a type of composure one could only describe as heroic. Her parents' full-time job is seeing their son released, but she has to go to work every day. She finds solace there, and showed us a bit of her relatable personality when she quipped, "I was the classic bossy older sister, but we've become friends."

To watch today's recording, click here.
Today, news outlets are reporting that President Biden is serious about a prisoner swap to secure Gershkovich's release. Photo: National Press Club rooftop, 1905. Library of Congress/ Harris & Ewing, photographer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Top 10 Pet Peeves, Grammar Edition

2023-06-24T05:48:00.018-07:00

Many niggling grammar mistakes, slang, acronyms and jargon rattle my cage. Here is a short summary:
1. Every day is two words when one means "every" as a determiner and "day" as a noun. Everyday is an adjective, as in "everyday occurrence". I just read a post from the World Health Organization, no less, in which everyday was used incorrectly! "Get 8 hours of sleep everyday!" (Cue nails on 20th century chalkboard.)
2. I am tired everyone "pivoting". When a boss first told me to pivot, I thought she meant do a little ballerina turn. Say "change your tack" or "try another way" etc.
3. A hundred percent. A joke of this is made beautifully in the opening scene between John Mayer's shallow character on the make and B.J. Novak's. Every question they pose over cocktails has one answer, "hundred percent." Please only use this if you are telling an eighth grader how well he did on his math test.
4. Acronyms. Unless it is IBM or USA, I probably do not have a clue. The most annoying use happens when a company spokesperson or CEO knows very well it's confusing the listener, but wants them to feel less than. Oh, we are such a smart company! That's why we have the AWDIT Club? Say what? "All we do is think!"
5. Awesome or amazing. Need I say more? Use istead: resplendent, colorful, shocking, delightful, tantalizing, illuminating, bewildering or memorable, depending on the context of course. Amazing or awesome is what NASA finds on MARS, not your Croque Monsieur.
6. Your instead of you're. Your is a possessive pronoun used when one says "your bike" or "your cheeks". When one is miserable, write "you are miserable". You (personal pronoun) plus are (linking verb).
7. Bragging about your doctorate. In the UK, we called our tutors (professors here) by their first names. If James, who has a PhD from Oxford, is so humble why are you bragging about your PhD in economics from Fresno State? You should be proud, of course, but we don't need to see "DrJones123" as your Twitter handle.
8. "Wherever you get your podcasts." Why do I have to get podcasts? No one says, "Wherever you buy or borrow your books."
9. Laughing at references from long ago. It is not funny that I'm telling you about a major story I broke 20 years ago, even if you were three at the time. Read a book, Gen Z: there were people who came before you.
10. Finally, their/they're. This is the same rule as your/you're. Their Persian ran after my Rottweiler. They're going to be in big trouble when I sick my Chihuahua on them."
Photo: the author's maternal grandmother Susie, a school teacher, who would be "mighty proud" (as she would have said) of her granddaughter for writing this.

Quit with the excuses: I’m older, not dense

2023-05-18T13:30:00.014-07:00

Today, yet another rejection came into my e-mailbox. "We have found other candidates whose exoerience more closely ..." Blah blah blah, said the editor to a woman, 61, who has been published in far more news outlets than whatever 30-year-old she just hired.
When I returned to university for my master's at 56, I really had no clue the job market would challenge me. I thought doors would fly open. Instead of flying open, they are stuck shut, only opening with elbow grease.
Why do Americans have such a hard time with the ageing woman? The clue might lay in the revolutionary Sports Illustrated cover girl, Martha Stewart, 81. I do not expect to look that good ever, let alone in 20 years, but why is this even a thing? Are we asking Robert Kraft or Senator Sanders, her peers, to show us their taut muscles in less-than wear? Gosh, I get a little embarrassed iust thinking about it. Yea, I am old enough to remember when Mom bought the Burt Reynolds Cosmo issue in the 70s, too. The joke was a man doing this at all, wink wink, which Reynolds excelled at.
Someone advised me to just give up journalism. Same someone had suggested being a Walmart greeter. Nothing against Walmart greeters, but do you really want a bitter, unemployed journalist snarling at you as you show your receipt for a 24-pack of jello? I have wracked my noggin wondering if, in To Kill a Mockingbird fashion, I can not only understand but accept their prejudice: the verdict is in and I do NOT.
Today's excuse was one of hundreds received since I graduated from King's College London. Admittedly, I have held two jobs since then, and been offered at least five I did not accept. But the ratio of offers-to-rejections is far worse than it was pre-master's, an equation I hadn't even entertained when getting my biometrics done in 2017!
If women are humans, and I believe we are, wouldn't it stand to reason that age = wisdom? I am a much sharper Jeopardy player now. I can name all of Captain Cook's voyages and Jane Austen's novels without blinking. You might get me on the latter, but I can indeed explain how she introduced slavery in the West Indies in "Mansfield Park" in such a nuanced fashion as to be almost undetectable.
Quit with the excuses. Quit with the patronizing "ma'ams" and inane questions about my tech knowledge. Google me, you stupid f%$k.
I hope Martha Stewart's SI splash does more than raise the blood pressure of octogenarians everywhere: I hope it is a wake-up wail to all those Gen Zers who have put us out to pasture, long before our time.

Stop ‘Pivoting’ Please!

2022-04-09T07:24:00.017-07:00

I don't know why this bothers me but if I read or hear one more journalist or talking head say "Let's pivot", I will scream. Just say "Let's change course" or "Let's scrap our plans to investigate Hunter Biden" or "Let's stop using tired jargon and show a little intellectual spark."
I never heard anyone say pivot outside the ballet world before 2017. Then it was everywhere. I went to grad school in London and, mercifully, the dreaded "pivot" stayed back in America. Yah! But wait, I had to move back to the U.S. when my student visa expired ... and guess what awaited me. Probably someone at Customs was dusting it off as I - newly educated by real English speakers, poor in purse but rich in thought - arrived at Newark.
I also cannot stand when anchors tell viewers they will talk to us "on the other side". They mean the commercial break, but for the past couple years, "pivoted" to saying other side. This makes me wonder what other jargon awaits: the virtual watercooler? The blinking red light? The self-important incurious journalist?
I realize that journalism isn't fine art, but it is affecting millions of Americans each day. Children pass TV screens and mimic what they hear. Later that day, little Laurie will say to Little Bobby, "Let's pivot at recess and play tetherball instead!"
Words matter. I urge all journalists to eschew jargon and clichés in favor of succinct prose. Yes, it takes more time to use your brain rather than lean on a tired phrase ... that is the point.
Image: By Ruizo at French Wikipedia - Transferred from fr.wikipedia to Commons by Korrigan

In the lobby with Fox News

2021-12-14T05:49:00.005-08:00

In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an anonymous hacker. Climate skeptics claimed the e-mails proved global warming was not real, completely made up by scientists.
At the time, I had been freelancing for a very prestigious scientific magazine, Engineering & Technology in Stevenage, UK, formerly IEE Review. I had written a number of environmental stories, including on electronic waste recycling and auto emissions and standards. I was not, however, a household name. I was living in a one-bedroom apartment in West Haven, Connecticut with my cat, just going about my business, making probably $16,000 a year. So when I received an e-mail from a new editor at Fox News, I was flattered. Flattered and horrified. What had I done to attract such attention? The person told me they had read some of my articles and were impressed. Would I be interested in coming down to Fox to discuss possibly writing articles on climate change and other topics? Just a discussion.
Pre-Covid, I leapt at any chance to race into the City. So of course, I did not hesitate to say yes. And on that fateful day, I dressed to the nines, psyched myself up, 'It's just a chat. You don't have to sell out. You don't have to be anyone you are not. You don't have to buy into the Fox News-speak and think.'
A very nice person met me in their super shiny lobby. I remember nervously standing there, looking at all the money walk by. I say money because as I said, I made about $16,000 and they probably had shoes that cost that much. The young man came down, and shook my hand (again, pre-Covid style), and we spoke a bit. I cannot remember what we said, but within minutes, I knew what I was there to say: "Thank you, I am flattered. I really am flattered you would seek me out and call me in here, but I don't think this is for me."
To be clear, he was not offering me a job. It was a discussion, but one I soon ended, realizing I was in the wrong place. Sort of like the time I went out for a drink with a married creative director named Buddy, and when he told me in his car that his wife wasn't home, I gasped and said what was he expecting! He had said, "So why are you here?" I raced out of that car and scampered back home as fast as you can say free Buffalo wings. This was the same. I knew it wasn't for me; I knew I was better off with my measly income and Payless shoes than selling out.
A journalist friend told me at the time that I should write about it. I was scared. I didn't know what to say. So this is it. Nothing happened. It was just a sorta "date".
PHOTO: By Jim.henderson - Own work, CC0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8899774

Why I'm excited to be an engineer with 12 years' experience; thanks, ATS!

2019-09-25T17:13:00.000-07:00

For the past two weeks I've stewed over the discomfiting feeling that my CV is not ATS-worthy. If you don't know this acronym, then bless your little heart. I didn't either until about five months ago, but now that I do know, I hate every last initial.

Applicant tracking systems are designed to chuck out job applicants so HR managers don't actually have to read 257 resumes. The problem is, apparently the code or whatever it is you call it is not sophisticated enough to read a CV as it really exists. I, for example, was deemed an engineer by an ATS. Why? Because the word pops up a few times under names of publications I have written for, e.g. Engineering & Technology. Further, my alma mater is listed as my last employer. Really.
None of this is amusing to me. A very skilled career counselor had approved my CV prior to this ATS debacle, and as I write this I still don't know how to fix it. I did some research and think if I re-save it as a plain text document I "might" be ok.
After over 200 CVs sent out into the ether, I am confident that common sense has now been overrun by computers. I am a member of the National Press Club. I have reported for over 300 publications, many with great prestige such as MIT Technology Review and Scientific American. I hold a recent M.A. with Merit from King's College London. And yet, I am at the mercy of an ATS and probably an overworked millennial with a bad attitude about grammar.

Can you lift that box and if not, what are you doing here?

2019-06-11T13:49:00.000-07:00

Today has not been a red letter day. First, seeing that I was in need of a job I decided to apply to waitress locally. Yet I soon got a call and they asked if I could do office work. Then when I showed up to do office work, the rotund proprietor asked behind his messy desk: "How much can you lift?" Earlier, he had asked what I had been doing in England ("studying") and then asked if I had made any money writing or if it was (then he laughed) just, you know, a hobby.
I left that interview thankful that at least I had a real job interview on Thursday, for a reporting position in New York. I had walked by the Nissan dealership and spoken to the young salesperson. "I won't buy a car til I get a job. This is my third interview so I feel I will probably get it."
Then I got on to the computer just now and had received an e-mail from HR: "Sorry, Laurie, but Hector (not his real name) has decided to hire internally. We will retain your resume. Keep checking the website."
Pardon me if I want to take a minute to check my pulse and make sure I am still breathing.
I graduated with merit from King's College London in January. I did this just months after losing my beloved mother unexpectedly in August. It was a crushing departure from my trajectory, yet I somehow managed to get back to my dissertation, finish it and excel. I had wanted to work in London (desperately) but spent most of my time wandering Hyde Park or Embankment remembering all the adorable things my Southern mama had shared with me while I was away studying. I ran out of time, frankly, and the visa was set to expire. So there I went, back to America January 28th, cat in tow.
Despite an older friend's warning that the job market would not be welcoming to me (not-so-subtle-hint, because I'm a bit older), I scoffed. I don't think of myself as anything but young. I haven't married; don't have a mortgage; never had a baby. The only thing old about me is my physical being, but apparently that's what matters. I do fully believe I am being passed over because of my age. Maybe not this particular job (how would I know?), but probably the other one - why else would the jolly old proprietor try to push me out of site from the dining room, into some dismal position lifting bags of salt or whatever the hell he was thinking about?
I know what you are saying: you are as young as you feel! Yes, I wish that were true! I do feel pretty young, despite a few health issues. I walk all over the place, watch Family Guy, drink Wendy's frosties, eat PB&Js and make funny faces at my doctor when she tells me I need some scary test. She: "You're not a child anymore!" My internal monologue: 'That's news to me.'
It is ironic that just this morning I read that 'Reality Bites' is the seminal film of a generation, the one just after mine. The movie is about all these young people floundering in sad little retail jobs with puffed up degrees. The difference between they and moi is obvious: I have a 57-year-old chin. Even a little bit of a Mitch McConnell turkey neck. Granted, some of it is full of thyroid nodules, this I know. But I am not skinny anymore. I don't really want to be skinny, frankly. I am just telling you that muscle tone changes as one ages.
I didn't really want either of these jobs, especially the first one. And as they say, interviews are practice. I just hope that the world with its judgmental eyes and all the men with their misogynistic need to hire young women they can gawk at won't overpower the world I desire: the world that values how hard I worked to persevere and earn a Master of Arts degree from the 37th best university in the world.

Time to shutter these annoying American phrases, words and jargon

2019-06-10T09:58:00.002-07:00

When I told my brother last night that a local restaurant and bar reminded me of a pub I'd find in Ealing or anywhere in West London, "except then people spoke with American accents," he quipped with a laugh: "Including YOU!"
He knows how to get my goat. He knows that my 14 months in jolly old England affected me in many ways including how I communicate. I wrote my dissertation in British English, receiving a mark just four points shy of distinction. I am rather proud of this.
Yet, those British words and phrases are not helping me here in Connecticut. Instead, I must reassimilate - a process I never hear anyone talk about! - and learn to love the way my fellow Americans speak. I was gone 14 months, as I said, and though I returned on various trips I was basically spared Trump nation-speak. So following please note I make no apologies for hating the following:
1. "You got this." - If Brits are saying this as well, I have not heard them, and every time I hear it I want to smack the speaker. I have even seen this in commercials. You got this. Sounds like a disease. Stop it.
2. "Go for it!" - Again, I did not hear this in London. I was at King's College, though, where the level of discourse was often far above my own natural way of speaking. Dear Americans, please learn to express what you really feel and not rely on euphemisms.
3. "Girl" - as in "Get it, girl!" - I cannot detail the ways in which this offends me. And I am likely to hear it from the same folks who refer to me (urp) as "m'am." In London everyone called me "madam", just fyi. There is another one - fyi. I shall stop it.
4. "Awesome" - You know what is awesome? The Grand Canyon. So is the birth of a baby or the view of the Alps from Air France. Please buy a thesaurus, read some books and spend your time with smarter people if you can't mutter more accurate adjectives. Here are a few to ponder: "Breathtaking", "Colorful", "Surprising", "Shocking", "Appealing", "Comforting", "Reassuring", "Divine." See, one must think about what she is really trying to say here. The one-size-fits-all mentality to "awesome" is what irks me; a new bra is only "awesome" if it comes affixed with electrodes that can read one's mind.

5. "On the other side" (CNN) - This is something the anchors say when they are really saying that a story will continue after the commercial. The anchor is saving a total of -1 word this way. For example, if I say, "The story about widgets will continue after the commercial" that is nine words. If I say "The story about widgets will continue on the other side" I have used ten words and also confused you, the viewer.
6. "Nasty" - And this is addressed to you-know-who. Nasty is only fine to use if used correctly, as in "a nasty cold" or "nasty rodent". Nasty is not fine to use when the speaker or writer wishes to denegrate women; as in 'She has x opinion so she must be nasty!'
7. "Bandwidth"- As in "Do you have the bandwidth for this document/call/rescheduling lunch with Mr. Romeo?" I still think of bandwidth as it's #1 meaning, which is from the field of electronics and has to do with a range of frequencies of a band, especially what are used for signalling. There is no reason to lean on its second definition, which means "mental energy". Just ask someone if they have the patience/time/energy to absorb/receive/etc whatever it is you are about to annoy them with.
8. All acronymns that are not IBM: Why do I even need to explain this? I remember asking a PR what something in the environmental sector meant after she had sent a missive littered with acronyms. I would like to add a note to the PRs as well - yes I have given you an acronym (breaking my own advice), but find if anyone can take an acronym it's you. Public Relations is a fine profession, and one I am more apt to regard highly if said professional spelt out her words. The annoying part of acronyms is the clubby atmosphere on the part of the users: 'We're so smart and you are not if you don't know that HWEPs (helmets with extra padding!) are."
If you have any more suggestions, please leave them in COMMENTS. <blockquote>Photo: Wikimedia Commons Images, By Dave Proffer - These folks could use a better acronym, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25709727

How 'fake' is the media? - time to be less defensive and take a hard look

2017-09-09T05:06:00.000-07:00

As a journalist for several decades, I've prided myself in always reporting the truth. Then I heard Carl Bernstein explain that a good journalist tells "the best version" of the truth. I decided to edit my response to that question, so much so that when a young journalist asked me about my approach to this profession, I mimicked Bernstein.
Then I read her paper, elegantly written and beautifully conceived. When I saw what I had said - I was not misquoted - I thought that "the best version" just isn't good enough.
If you're not a journalist, let me explain what goes on in news rooms and what news itself is. News is not a synopsis about the day your child brought home a B+ in Math, your family ate Hamburger Helper, the laundry had to be redone because the washer's acting funky, and Aunt Margaret dropped by unexpectedly. No - the news is that your genius child, aged 5, has advanced to high school math, invented a new social media app that has brought him to the attention of Apple's Tim Cook, and Aunt Margaret is dating Justin Bieber, which is what she came by to tell you, and TMZ is camped out outside.
I remember hearing "if it bleeds, it leads" and thinking that was just fine. But after all these years, constantly hearing from editors, "yes, but is it news?" or "where's the news?" I'm growing more and more skeptical about the news. That is not to say I support Trump's mantra about "fake" news. But I understand why his many supporters also support his view that news is fake, the media is fake, dishonest.
Part of the problem is the Internet. If we reporters report for online media, someone is watching to see how many page views a story gets. I interviewed for a job a few years ago in which I was told I would be rated by this measure. At the time it smacked of PR, I had no interest, wouldn't stoop so low. Flash forward a few years and the very publication for which I was writing used the same measure. It was not the sole measure, but stories that drew over 5,000 sets of eyeballs were valued well in Corporate.
This concerned me, and perhaps led me to the decision I made a few years ago to attend graduate school abroad. I would not get my M.A. in journalism, but another subject, one that could fill me with knowledge and ideas and help set a framework for better analyzing the changes in my profession. I fear that in the next few years, publications will be under so much pressure that the only barometer they'll use to keep or disgard staff will be that person's page views. And once emojis and infographics are proven to be more powerful draws than words, words will be pared to the minimum.
It's imperative that reporters and editors, whether at trades or standard publications, keep their heads and integrity in the roiling climate of the news business. I won't lie - I was proud when one of my stories was in the top three recently. But I would be prouder if I won the Pulitzer one day for deep, true, investigative reporting.
PHOTO: The reporter on assignment at Georgetown University, June 2017

Generations: How a young millennial journalist makes (and gets) her news (part 2 of 2)

2017-07-05T16:20:00.000-07:00

In part one of this interview, Marissa Gamache, a reporting intern in Arlington, Virginia who'll spend her senior year of college at Maynooth University in Ireland before graduating from Bethel University, spoke to me about how her generation sees the current state and the future of journalism. Marissa and I work on the same publication, Transport Topics, right now. Following is a lightly edited transcript of that recent conversation.
....
I see myself and my parents' generation more connected than the one in between the two of us.
What do you mean?
I look at it as 10-year gaps, instead of Generation X or Z or whatever, or millennials. I think the values my parents had -- as well as those of persons in their 30s or late 20s -- are even different than those of the kids who are 18-25, 16- 28, and I think that's because right now it's the thirtysomethings who are starting to push all their ideals and all of their ingenuity. I think that when we come up in the next 10 years, we're going to push our platform which I think is going to be bringing us back to our roots.
I hope so!
Which is VHS tapes, and Nintendo and things like that.
Mortar and tablet, quill pens!
Exactly. (laughs)
Really old school! (laughs)
So I think journalism will go back to more of a journal-ism field.
I want to make sure I understand - your parents would be in their 40s?
50s.
So you are seeing more changes incrementally in 10-year spurts rather than in bigger spurts, like between you and I.
Yes, there is so much change -
Seemingly every month.
Yes, and I'm just at the bottom of millennials, when I was born, I'm second to last in that age group. I'm significantly different in what I'm looking for with a path for journalism.
Interesting. So it sounds like you are still optimistic about journalism. What do you think journalists who studied in the age of typewriters to become professionals, such as myself, don't understand about modern journalism?
I think they don't understand you have to change on a month by month basis, whether it be your audience you're targeting, or your style of writing, or the things you think are important that you're writing. You have to think about what's important based on your readers, and if you don't, that's when you start losing readership right away.
Hmm. But let me focus in on that 'style of writing'; that's an interesting point. We all know journalists should be on one side, and then advertising on the other, right?
Mmm-hmm.
You're not supposed to worry so much about page views, but in reality we are and that seems like something that is also really changing. What do you mean about changing style of your writing?
I think that even the language. I think a lot of times people don't understand -- Older people talk in a way that is more informative, and in language that is more detailed and in-depth with a vocabulary that is robust. I think that in order to target younger people or a larger audience you have to continue to change that vocabulary and refresh it, so people can understand and make connections to their daily life, even though it's different.
Hmm. Interesting, that's an interesting perspective. What's your feeling about blogging and how seriously do you take bloggers? Does it vary by the type of blogger?
(nods) I think blogging is really an emerging market and it has been for the last couple years, the last five to 10 years it's started to get bigger and bigger, but I think it's gotten to a point where so many people are trying to make their living off blogging and instead it's a great supplement to someone who's, say, really enthralled in the business field and they're an exec. I think that blogging really has a following and if the information is niche enough, or extravagant enough, people will be interested and a following definitely happens. And I love keeping up on things coming up, like with travel bloggers. I think it's so much fun to just take a peak --
Do you have a blog?
No, I've never been one to write personally about anything like myself, or just experiences, or just information I think people should know.
So where do you see the most opportunity for journalists right now?
I think the biggest opportunity - I think in multi-media journalism, which is looking at startup companies on even Youtube platforms, and others like, Slate has gotten popular - that Tomi Lahren (a young conservative online video and TV host) who's got viral videos of her ranting on certain things. I think those will be the types of journalists most coveted, who can get up on Facebook Live and be reporting here, there, and kind of have a gamut of coverage.
I've had an article published on Slate; so are you talking about a certain aspect of Slate?
Their multi-media presence is huge. That sucks people in to following their website. ...I feel like news websites like Slate, if they can get a couple big faces that emerge, like young people in front of the camera, being in different areas.
What I hear from you is - and I'm so excited we've had this conversation because while I know a lot of this already, I've also learned a lot - it seems there's a big difference in how you've been learning journalism and how I learned it, which was to focus on the five Ws and one H. I'd like to think you still learned that?
Oh yeah!
So you're not saying that if your style changes, you're going to have to say 'I don't care when or why, I just care about the what and the how.'
Oh no. I'm saying that just how the composition of the story is, you stick to that. There's always the fundamentals. I think you have to keep up with the trends of what's hip, what's getting 'likes', and views in terms of your writing.
But what concerns me and a lot of people is attention spans are getting shorter because of technology, and I noticed that The New York Times and Washington Post will want to communicate the main points so they'll do it with a slide show now. Video, with script across. It's as if to say, 'We know you can only focus for two seconds.'
Yeah, yeah! I think it kind of does a disservice to the work that goes into stories. I think people think they then understand an issue based on those five slides that are shown, and realistically, they have just scratched the surface of knowledge. I definitely think long-form journalism has a place, and I think that it's online because no longer are people looking to just read a bunch of words, they want the pictures. It's like a picture book for adults; adults need those nowadays.
Hm, ok.
And so I definitely think there's a place for it (long-form journalism), but it's hard for someone to read 2,000 words unfortunately.
You said you hoped we'd revert to an earlier time. Do your parents have a newspaper subscription?
They have a daily subscription to the Star-Tribune in Minneapolis.

Generations: How a young millennial journalist makes (and gets) her news (part 1 of 2)

2017-06-30T04:37:00.001-07:00

Marissa Gamache will be starting her senior year of college this autumn, spending part of it studying in Ireland at Maynooth University before graduating from Bethel University in Minnesota. She is completing a double major in journalism and international relations, and this summer, is interning as a reporter on the government team at Transport Topics in Arlington, Va. where I am a business reporter. I wanted to discuss with Marissa how her generation of reporters sees journalism these days, where it's going, and how she fights the allure of getting all her news from Facebook.
Marissa, when you think of previous generations of journalists, what words come to mind?
I think of the 6 p.m. nightly news and my parents.
Are they journalists?
No. I think of old journalism, Watergate, Edward R. Murrow, and Bob Costas.
Thank you. So, how do you feel your generation is changing the way journalism is done?
I think we're on a minute-to-minute basis. I think we are expecting fast, but not as accurate, journalism. We are expecting information to be constantly updated, constantly gone back to. I think we just expect platforms to be different - Facebook, Twitter, even Instagram - getting all of our news through those mediums first, and then going to websites before even going to print, and print is always the last for us, but Facebook is the first.
That's interesting, because as you know from the election that was the big problem, with 'fake news' right? So what do you see, in your own words, as the pitfalls in getting all your news from Facebook?
I think we get led down rabbit trails of thinking what reality is when it really isn't, and I think a lot of kids in my generation have false realities of what's going on in the world. Because they just take the tag lines and think of that as what news is and they don't take the time to read the stories that are being written. They just look at those eye-catching words and think they know what the story's about.
And yet, anybody who meets you is obviously impressed with you - you're so well-spoken and intelligent, it seems you and others like you would say, 'Well I realize my generation is sacrificing accuracy for the sake of speed but I also want accuracy.' So how do you push back a little bit and say, 'We also need to incorporate Old School journalism standards?'
For me, I always go to the source. And I think I just look at news as something to be respected, and it's important for us, when I interact with my friends to enlighten them. (laughs) I don't want to think I'm above them, but in terms of my profession now that I'm going towards journalism, to know the importance of letting people know and helping people be aware of what platforms are reliable, and I try to put down my phone and push myself away from social media and give myself breaks so I spend more time interacting with paper and websites.
Great, Marissa, that leads into the next question so we're on the same wavelength. Where do you see journalism going over the next five to ten years? I've had friends, including myself, who've experienced layoffs, and yet at your age I would not have expected print to fade away. And I told you about the Pulitzer Prize winners, alums of my college, who got laid off. Not to be Debbie Downer, there are a lot of positive changes, but what does your crystal ball show?
If I were to take it out now and just start thinking, I'm optimistic or hoping that we will get to a point where we are so electronically dependent that people will push back and the pendulum will swing, and it will almost be like when people have novelty t-shirts that become popular. At least I'm hoping that's the direction we'll go in, that people will want to bring back family values of the Sunday paper.
Read Part 2 of my interview with Marissa. Read some of her reporting here.

Journalists and so-called 'corporate culture'

2017-06-23T20:33:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite journalists was Hunter S. Thompson. I remember my ex-boyfriend Benoît telling me that he'd loaned my copy of "Fear and Loathing" to his brother, and that they both said my comments in the margins seemed more like something a guy would have written. I took that as a compliment.
In college, I took a five-unit Hemingway course (three units was the average) and loved reading his old journalistic writings. I liked being a "chick" in a man's game. It reminded me of my high school newspaper, where I was one of the only females on the team of reporters. I am still in touch with these guys, and cherish those memories from Livermore, California.
So looking back, I realize I was molded long ago to be a tomboy type of journalist, one who could spar with fellows on the one hand, while still looking lovely in lace that evening. I wore the same long man's blue and white striped work shirt with jeans in college, every day, cigarette dangling from my mouth as I hung out in the quad and thought Deep Thoughts.
Now I am beyond middle-aged. In some parts of the country I'm even considered a "senior", a term I revile of course, because I'm nowhere near retirement age (and how can I be when my hair is still a beautiful chestnut brown, ahem?) So by now, one would think, I'd know myself well enough to know where I do and don't fit in. And yes, I do know that, and I also know that despite evidence to the contrary, I will always try to fit in where I do not.
I remember being a counselor at a summer camp outside Yosemite. I was 20, and my charges were 12-year-olds with too many curling irons and giggles to fully control. They would, however, end up looking after me as I became terrified of the mice that sultry summer. As more and more care packages arrived, more and more mice would scamper across the boards below the ceiling, sending me scampering right out the door. I remember fleeing to the advisors' air-conditioned van to sleep one night, knowing my co-counselor Karen could control the girls back at the cabin.
I wrote a song called "Mommy I Can't Stand the Mice" and had the drama chug (group, in Yiddish) act out the parts - mice and sleeping campers. It was a huge hit with everyone at the camp that year except one person: the camp director. I will never forget - and we are going back over 30 years - looking over at her, as everyone's cracking up, and she's just glaring at me like I broke some sort of ancient code.
This was my first experience with breeching corporate culture. I had broken the rule of being a camp counselor--never leave your cabin, not for mice, not for spiders, not for some cute male counselors down by the river. Sure, I was barely an adult, but no matter. I was not behaving as the culture was advising me to do.
For journalists looking to take jobs in corporate America (or anywhere) I would advise them to really do some soul searching. I cannot imagine Hunter S. Thompson or Hemingway inside a corporate environment, any more than I could imagine a freelancer friend of mine (we'll call him Tom), who worked out of his apartment in New York, taking a 9-5 job.
Me? I'm still trying to find my place in this world I guess, still wanting to fit in and be brave enough to go back to the cabin. I will always be proud of that mouse song, by the way, and more than that - that I made a dozen 12-year-olds my friends that summer.

PHOTO: The author, a bit dirty and exhausted, Camp Tawonga, 1981

Moving from freelancing to full-time work: pros and cons

2017-06-15T04:43:00.000-07:00

Whether you are 25 or 55, as I am, transitioning from pajamas to pin-stripe suits can be a daunting experience. Once day you're eating PB&Js and working from 10 to 4 or 11 to 10 and the next you're expected to be in a cubicle by 9 and play nice with strangers.
Having recently taken a staff reporting position - after 10 years of freelancing - I can attest that there are growing pains. I take responsibility for my independent skin, one that got tougher as I aged, and so learning to be in a team is sometimes tricky. Mom put it this way: "You're like Luzie (her elder cat); you don't like people to get too close."
Now, Luzie and I happen to have a lovely, warm relationship. She'd wait in the doorway of "her" room alongside Mom during the four months I spent at Mom's in South Texas. She'd "meeew!" and I'd "meew!" and know just how to pet her before she bit me. So yeah, perhaps that's me, at least on days when I'm tired.
The benefits to being on a staff are that you'll get a regular paycheck, of course, but you'll also forge relationships that can last a lifetime. I am still friends with people from my last job, close friends with one of them, and occasionally e-mail my ex-boss just to joke that it's Summer Sausage Season again.

What I would recommend before you decide to jump the freelance ship is that you ask yourself these questions. If you don't know the answers, and especially if the answers are more no's than yesses, then get back in your PJs and take the laptop back to bed:
1. Are you comfortable with not only one editor critiquing your work but a team of editors?
2. Do you mind centralized air and not being able to open windows? Many jobs if not most fall into this category.
3. Are you social enough so you feel comfortable saying hi to dozens of people (if it's a big company) each and every day?
4. Can you smile and be chipper even when you're tired or down?
5. How comfortable are you working with members of the opposite sex? Are you prepared for everything from subtle misogny to unwanted flirtations or unwanted attractions? Can you remain professional and see everyone as, to the extend possible, gender neutral?
6. Do you have the physical toughness to work in a loud office where you sometimes can't hear yourself think? Can you conduct interviews either in person by phone with lots of ambient noise?
7. Are you more of a chameleon than an iconoclast, who can blend in easily with most office cultures? I came from the New York area to the DC area and there are differences, especially in how men and women work together.
8. Can you keep your opinions to yourself if need be? Can you share ideas when called upon? Can you accept that many of your ideas will not be accepted by higher-ups?
The pros and cons of full-time employment tip the scale one way for some, another way for others. Obviously, how well you get along with your boss(es) and coworkers will go a long way toward tipping the scale in a positive direction.
Photo: Wikimedia Commons images: BEN_6159, May 23, 2012, European People's Party: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BEN_6159_(7255866304).jpg

Should reporters relocate for a job?

2017-05-24T16:47:00.000-07:00

The subject of today's blog post wasn't hard to come up with: I recently made the decision to relocate for a job opportunity.
However, even nearly two weeks into the job I'm still grappling with how to explain my decision-making process. It's sort of like someone throws you in a forest and tells you to find your way back to camp. You know you were at camp; you know you're only 3 miles away; but you also know you don't recognize anything where you are.
Moving is one of the most stressful experiences in life, and so is taking a new job. Combined, you might as well get a divorce or grieve the loss of your puppy. I haven't researched this, but I imagine it's even harder as one ages.
When I was 39 I drove across the country for a job in New York. It had been my lifelong dream to work in the Big Apple, having grown up on Woody Allen movies and fancied myself a kind of Mariel Hemingway-esque character. I would grow sophisticated on the Upper East Side and learn to sip cosmopolitans with Carrie and friends.
New York lived up to the billing - and then some. I moved for New York, not the job. In fact, the boss-to-be at the time said to me: "Don't move here just for us." I said, "I won't." When that job didn't work out, I still had New York, or more accurately Connecticut (where I was living).
It's far trickier when you find yourself moving someplace you never imagined yourself living. While most of my friends and family members imagine I never really wanted to work in Wyoming (where I once interviewed) or rural Massachusetts (where I also interviewed), the fact is, huge parts of my heart resonate in both areas. I drove through Wyoming on the aforementioned trek and found its wild openness invigorating. I also fancy myself a true New Englander now after over a dozen years in Connecticut.
Falls Church, Virginia, where I am now, was never on my radar. Working in DC wasn't either. I'd only been to the capitol thrice, each time a fun experience, but it seemed more like a place to visit rather than live. Yet when I told people I was moving here for work, resoundingly, everyone projected their excitement on to me.
"Oh! Washington is such an exciting place! Enjoy the transition. So many monuments, so much history, so much to do!"
None of that factored into my decision to take this job, though. I took the job because I needed a full-time position, liked the person who would be my boss, and figured at least I'd be (more or less) still in the Northeast. It bugged me, I must admit, that I was still secretly pining for New York.
Yet as a journalist, nothing is more enriching than having to do as I did - pick up and go, learn to traverse new terrain, make new friends, learn new mores and memorize new Metro procedures (took me a week to remember to slap my Smart Card on the turnstile both when going into the terminal and leaving).
In the long run, having to be lonely in a new place -- yes, I said it -- can only feed the very mill that drives the machine that makes me a journalist. Without friends here, I will be forced to meet new people. I will be forced to see things in a new way. I will get lost. I will cry. I will fall.
So far, some days have been very rocky, while at times, it's been ethereal. I love noticing new types of trees here in Virginia, or seeing a different busker at the Falls Church Metro after work each day.
And who knows, maybe in time I won't keep comparing every citizen I see to the bustling populous of Manhattan or the refined, good-hearted New Englanders I left behind. Maybe. But then again, it's too soon to tell. Photos: top - the author in front of the White House soon after arriving in the area in May, 2017; bottom - on a cruise on Harbor Cruise Line of the East River, photo by Jason Sagebiel.

Eye rolls, smirks, and sighs must stop

2017-05-12T05:12:00.000-07:00

Journalists are tasked with holding persons in positions of power accountable. We are also supposed to remain objective at all times, at least when we're on the job. This is probably easier for print journalists who can scowl or laugh with colleagues behind closed doors as they hammer out their latest treatise for print or online consumption.
Broadcast journalists have a steeper hill to climb, though, and that has never been more apparent than during the Trump era. While CNN's Wolf Blitzer does a sterling job keeping a poker face, Anderson Cooper recently and famously rolled his eyes when speaking to Kellyanne Conway and Jake Tapper frequently smirks during interviews.
CNN has a history of hiring reporters whose emotions are easy to read. Remember the Piers Morgan era and his passion for gun control? What about Don Lemon getting so drunk on New Year's Eve that it was embarrassing to watch? While these issues, one can argue, are morally poles apart from a journalistic perspective they are equally wrong. (Note, Lemon still works at CNN.)
Keeping a straight face is imperative, because to do otherwise shows the audience what the journalist is feeling and thinking. Eye roll? Cooper thought Conway was full of mullarkey. Tapper's smirk? It reads that he thinks he's better, more knowledgeable, and above the person he's interviewing. Notice how he doesn't assume that pose when interviewing someone he probably respects.
I like Tapper and Anderson, and 90 percent of the time, their passion for this profession fuels the best part of them and their journalism - asking incisive questions, surmounting perceived obstacles, striving for transparency and honesty.
Print journalists should also be careful, but the job is more subtle. Watch verbs and adjectives and other ways of subtly disclosing one's opinions. One of the best pieces of advice I ever got from a producer was "use says". I was insisting that I could say things like "he demurred" or "he enthused". In strong journalism, a reporter mustn't color or slant the story. See the difference: "John said his daughter was his favorite." Versus: "John gushed that his daughter was his favorite."
With the current presidential administration the subject of daily controversy, it's time for journalists to hunker down and get to work. No one cares whether or not you think Sean Spicer will race toward you Melissa McCarthy-style from his podium or that you'd rather be marching on Washington than covering it.
These times call for all the truth we can muster. Rise to the challenge.
PHOTO: Wikimedia Commons Images, Pete Riches, 2011.

Technology and typos: The battle between the generations

2017-04-25T15:42:00.000-07:00
Recently, I've experienced at least a handful of faux pas on the behalf of what I assume were millennial mistakes - calling me Laura or Miss Wiegle, not understanding what a "commission" means (do you have a dictionary?), and completely leaving out the name of an entity written in my post. In all three instances, I'm sure the offenders were in their 20's, an age when both the mind and body are more agile. I remember being 23 and stewing over whether or not I'd put my quotation marks on the right side of the period.
In 2017, though, I rarely get the sense that millennials care as much about typos and grammatical errors as I did. On the flip side, they care very much about apps, social media, and the latest smartphone flavor. I recently conducted a job interview on Skype, for which I was thankful, but in the coming weeks I completely blew it when I didn't know how to fix my microphone. I ended up looking like a ludite (which I am not) in front of the thirtysomething filmmaker I was interviewing.
My brother said a while back that we're at the perfect age on the technological scale - young enough to quickly adapt to technology, but old enough not to become addicted. I'd like to let my millennial readers absorb that for a moment. For that matter, seniors need to think about this as well.
While it's true that many seniors are more tech-savvy than some younger people -- i.e. my dad gave me my first computer, first iPad, etc. -- predominantly, younger people are pushing the way forward. It's important for people my age and older to be open to change, not tethered to our typewriters and quill pens. Yet, while we're being adaptable, our sons and daughters must stop texting for an evening and blow off the dust on "Huckleberry Finn".
I recently worked a holiday job at a popular bookstore, and when I asked one of my coworkers whether a certain magazine sold well or not, I was in for an earful. I found out that typically these days, magazines aren't selling as well as they once did. She said many of the magazines have to go back to distributors. This made me sad! I graduated from college in 1985 hoping to set the world on fire as either a magazine writer or a TV scriptwriter. I was thrilled when I got an internship at San Francisco Magazine.
Because of my age and print experience, I'm fond of correct grammar, less fond of hyperbole and cliché, and completely sickened by sloppy writing. I must admit that if someone calls me Laura or Miss Wiegle (though the latter is, of course, hilarious), it's a t.u.r.n.o.f.f. I was schooled on double-checking spellings, especially people's names!
Technology is the culprit for millennials' sloppiness, I'm convinced. Staring at a small screen for hours on end is not only damaging to the eyes, but destructive on many other levels including snipping away at one's attention span.
So hey, millennials - yes you! Put down that phone. I don't care about your Snapchat. And just because you ate a nice tuna casserole doesn't mean everyone has to see it on Instagram. Although yeah, I too am guilty of posting too many photos and checking in with people who call themselves "friends" but are in reality, just people I was told I'm related to.

Photo: Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons Images. "Statesmen No.537: Caricature of Mr Thomas Power O'Connor MA MP."Feb. 25, 1888; Vanity Fair. Digitized version from : darvillsrareprints.com; Author - "Spy"; Leslie Ward (1851–1922) Link back to Creator infobox template wikidata:Q920924

What's age got to do with it? Plenty.

2016-06-04T20:05:00.000-07:00

When The New York Times published an article about the dour job prospects for women over 50, I rejoiced - not because I find such things worthy of celebration, but because I could relate.
As I write this, it dawns on me that some will think it's sour grapes or there is something pathologically wrong with me. Maybe I get into job interviews and step on the interviewer's foot, show up late, smoke in the hallway or tell him all about how I like to make queer kitten sounds at the office Christmas soirée.
But no, no, that's not me, and hasn't been me for all of the 23 or so job interviews I've had in this wonderful field we call journalism. What I have suffered from, though, is middle-aged woman syndrome. No longer taut, I find that projecting I can still be "taught" is tricky. Unless I'm interviewing with women my age or older, there is clear prejudice. Wait, back up, no it's not clear, it never is.
I just lost out on a job I actually wasn't sure I wanted, but it was a good job with benefits so I wanted it. What I didn't expect, though, was to not get a second interview. The initial interview lasted an hour and a half. I felt I was, for once, on solid footing. But then I didn't get it, and it took a long time to hear that I wasn't getting the second interview. I became very emotional that day, as if the final cog on the wheel that was holding me together was finally spent. I'd had it.
At least for now.
Problem was, I'd shared with the interviewer that I'd just written a paper on the same subject I'd be covering for him and my client had called it "brilliant." Apparently this came off as confrontational, and it would be disingenous of me to claim I wasn't trying to screw the knife in just a wee bit. It certainly didn't help reverse the decision. It just shone a light for me, once again, on the disconnect between what I was getting from job interviews versus my freelance career.
After being told at a top news agency in London that I couldn't interview powerful people, or could I?, I nabbed an interview with Yale Nobelist Thomas Steitz for Scientific American (Oct. 2009). After being asked if I was "quick enough" for a job in lower Manhattan, if I could keep up, I juggled assignments for at least five clients a week, rarely breaking for weekend frivolity. And after trying to prove my business writing credentials at a top wire service (granted, an informational interview), I wrote three stories for Institutional Investor (late 2015, early 2016).
The list goes on.
When I was 43 and under, when I was thin and beautiful, I got jobs easily - sometimes it felt like too easily. How is it that it was easier to get a job at 43 for a financial publication in lower Manhattan than it is now, when I have reported for Institutional Investor, E&T in the UK, MIT Technology Review, The Prague Post, The Commercial Record, Slate, Entrepreneur, The Hudson Dispatch, New Haven Advocate, Yankee, Cape Cod Life, AARP, and other publications? I can't even remember them all at this point.
When I was leaving my last job in early 2008, a man warned me it would be rough for me, if not then then very soon. I balked. "Aah, I'm fine." I thought him to be chauvenistic at worst, an alarmist at best.
Turns out, sadly, he was a sage.
The question is, what can be done about it? I've decided to reconfigure my resume so it clearly shows I graduated from college in 1985. I think all the job counselors telling folks to leave that off aren't helping anyone. I own my age. I will be 55 in August. I have earned every line, gray hair, and acidic tummy ache. In these years I have become more compassionate, more wise, more informed, more hilarious, and more curious. I've stopped pining over stupid men who say things like, "Wow, you have virtually perfect sentence structure" and instead, aim to write perfect sentences. I've stopped looking at the moon and dreaming of a fairytale ending that involves a chiseled chin and instead, dream of how my own chin will rest on the desk of The New York Times.
I hope that the right boss is around the corner for me, and for women - and men - like me, incredible people over 50 who have far more to give than they did a decade or three ago.
See my work at www.muckrack.com/laurie-wiegler and contact me at www.lauriewiegler.weebly.com

The Wacky Wiegler Year in Review (2014)

2014-12-27T14:57:00.000-08:00
Well, well, well. You're probably reading this on your smartphone, or the mini iPad or some other tablet. If you are sitting at a desk reading this on a computer larger than a loaf of bread you are probably also listening to "Afternoon Delight" and playing Pong while you're at it. For in 2014, the year when everything journalistic was consumed not only digitally and quickly but minimally, everyone competed to do things faster and smaller than the next guy. If you were capable of reading font on a one-inch screen, hey, you've got a leg up on me. I'm still enlarging fonts and begging PRs to only send me releases with 12-point lettering. Yet, the trends toward faster and tinier were innocuous compared to the tragic assault on our industry that came with layoffs. Fewer and fewer of us were making a living as journalists -- from reductions at The New York Times to CNN to smaller papers such as the Orange County Register. At CNN, too, it seemed that the trend was skewing toward younger, blonder, perkier and less controversial. Watching Candy Crowley's farewell, for example, reeked of misogyny. I could be wrong, but it seems that she was pushed out in favor of attracting a male audience intent on watching women gorgeous enough to pose in magazines read the news. This is not to say that brilliant women such as Erin Burnett don't deserve to be there -- they do! -- but what would happen if say, they put on 30 pounds or aged 20 years? The average female broadcaster is either 35 or looks it, and is a size many real women/print journalists haven't been since high school. In newsrooms such as the Grey Lady's, a white woman, Jill Abramson, was pushed out for political reasons, ostensibly because she wasn't fair to her African American colleague, Dean Baquet, who would replace her. That may very well be true, but the PR for the Times wasn't great during this upheaval, and the ensuing layoffs a few months later were proof that all was not right there. Environmental journalists such as myself had been previously disheartened to see a full-on folding of this department, a trend that would later be echoed at NPR, also struggling. Yet, in the midst of this uncertainty, the blogosphere and Twittersphere continued to explode, resulting in a power for community-based journalism the big dogs could only envy. When stories such as Ferguson or even the death of Robin Williams were shared, many of us were just following Twitter, not the Times (New York or LA). So what's ahead for 2015? I predict more layoffs, sadly, at beloved papers and myopically male-controlled networks. I see more infotaintment, botox and IT smarties leading the way as the five Ws and one H real journalists learnt in J school fade away. Suggestion: If more philanthropists supported a New York Times, a Washington Post or even an Orange County Register, the civilized masses would be better for it. A strong local paper informs the populous in ways that paid-for-content rags cannot. As for coverage, the fallout from the 24-7 obsession by CNN with the missing Malaysian Airliner (the first one, the one we haven't found and which CNN doesn't appear to care about anymore) proves that networks can and will reverse course after a spate of bad press. It was almost embarrassing to watch as journalists on their shows went from the nonstop plane talk to seemingly considering it an afterthought. Another trend that will change may include how journalists cover celebrities. Anyone who interviewed Bill Cosby between the start of his career and the end of it, or most of them, rue that they let him get away with, if not murder, then rape after rape after rape. It sickened any reporter with a pulse to watch the way Cosby sought to intimidate the AP reporter at the art opening at the Smithsonian. Not sure what was worse - Cosby's arrogant request not to run the bit about the rape allegations or his wife's stupid smile. Celebrities are notoriously known for controlling interviews or trying to, and any journalist who doesn't play ball well, moves on to some kind of more respectable work. I'd love to see every journalist report the truth about celebrities, not allowing the spin doctors to control whether we reveal that say, Renee Zellweger really did have a little work done, or that Maria Shriver really did know about her husband's love child, but just hoped we'd never find out. And before you comment, Kennedy-and-Bridget-Jones fans, these last two asides were just speculation, ahem. Hopefully, one trend will continue to permeate our business, though: wit. There is no replacement for a fine intellect and biting pen. So I leave you with laid off OC reporter Kevin Sablan's (@ksablan) farewell tweet at 10:34 AM on June 9: "I'm leaving the company soon, and was happy to include farts in one of my last columns."
In 2014, a string of late night talk show hosts either announced their retirement or actually completed their shows, from Leno to Letterman and Craig Ferguson to E!'s Chelsea Handler, who moves on to Netflix next year. Photos: Wikimedia Commons Images including "Caricature de l'acteur américain Robin Williams réalisé au crayon graphite" by Fabrice Ledoux. Follow me on Twitter or contact me through www.lauriewiegler.com. Read my articles at www.muckrack.com.laurie-wiegler 12/28/2014 12:12 AM EST: This story was filed just a few hours prior to hearing that AirAsia Flight 8501 went missing, probably over the Java Sea.

Sex, lies and tweets: Why sexual harassment will never be okay

2014-04-08T17:47:00.002-07:00
I'll admit: I have some personal baggage (is there any other kind) that makes me react severely whenever a man lies to me. This is both good and bad - good because I run away from jerks but bad because I tend to suspect, perhaps more than I should, that a fair portion of the men out there are less than angelic.

It would be unprofessional to launch into too much personal history, so I'll skip right to the professional aspect of my life, the part that enjoys male colleagues as much or more than my fellow females. I've always prided myself on being "one of the guys" one minute, a lady the next. This is one reason I think I did relatively well covering Wall Street. I knew when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em, so to speak, never carrying a wink too far but then again, knowing when a skirt is better than slacks.

Decent men in the businessworld understand this game, and never take it too far. They have wives, girlfriends, sisters, mothers and they are learning, with every passing decade, that the "Mad Men" days ended long ago.

So it is with great heartache that I found out this week that a Facebook "friend" had admitted to sexually harassing at least two female scientists with whom he interacted. I have/had never met this FB friend in person, but when he friended me, I was flattered. I like to think someone's reading my stuff, especially a somewhat famous reporter, at least famous amongst the Nerd Ranks.

Now, this person is not alone in the world of misogyny and pain inflicted on females, but his particular stripe of criminality -- criminal in the emotional sense -- came because, as a science writer pointed out, the young are vulnerable and their trust should not be abused. I am paraphrasing; she said it far more eloquently.

She also pointed out that women in positions of power should not exploit the relatively unpowerful positions of the young men who come to us, some for advice, others for jobs, some for something in between.

In my experience, which is all I have, far more men have wanted something out of me than vice-versa, without being sincere or transparent as to their intent - whether it was the boss on a secretarial job who tweaked my elbows, sat on my desk to dictate and then, after I asked him to please get off, fired me the following day; or the aforementioned male reporter, who "friended" one of his victims, only to show her the very seediest antithesis of that word.

This gets back to the trickier, messier part: if some male has lied to us, as a young girl, then the lies that follow are magnified; and every lie becomes a knife wound. My hunch is that the perpetrators ("perps" for short) sense this vulnerability, and sadistically choose their targets for low self-esteem as much as for their youth, looks, what have you.

Why do I bring this all up? What does it have to do with journalism? Everything.

Because women who are trying to claw their way up the ranks not only deserve a fair shake, but deserve respect. It's not enough to lash out privately; we must climb up and shake our fists at the wind: "You will not be dishonest. You will not speak inappropriately to me. And you will not touch me. Not me, not my elbows, nothing."

I firmly believe that young women will have it easier as time goes by, but not easy enough. As Pres. Carter so aptly pointed out recently, women are raped on college campuses and these instances are going unreported. How many women are being desexualized, as Pres. Carter has brought to light? And here in the US, how many of us are overly valued for our sex only to be devalued on the sunset side of menopause?

To all the men out there with goodness in them; for every kind, decent, honest and honorable son, father, brother, husband, boyfriend and employee: keep doing right. Show your fellow men how to treat women. The world will never have enough of that.

The gentleman that is Letterman

2014-04-05T12:48:00.002-07:00

The morning after Dave had interviewed Pres. Carter, I told my mom, who seems to respect my opinion on the subject of interviewing techniques because of my long journalism career (and our strong genetic link), that "he's the best interviewer on late night. Hands down. Followed by Chelsea, then Kimmel."

When Chelsea gave Piers that now-famous smackdown, "You need to pay attention to your guests!" I thought immediately of Letterman. Ms. Handler is very adept at putting her guests as the center of attention, and like Dave, will quickly say "enough about me" if guests get too inquisitive about the host.

Dave is the best interviewer on late night because he's a fantastic listener. He doesn't just nod as if trying to make the time pass, or resort to funny voices or childish dances with Justin Timberlake, but he actually puts the guest front and center. Now, if your late night cuppa tea is showbiz razzle dazzle, then perhaps yes, you want a late night host who can put on 47 different voices, play 17 musical instruments and inspire Stephen Colbert to throw pennies down his shirt.

But that is not what I want, and ever since Thursday's sad announcement, I've felt very cheated host-wise. Coming so soon after Chelsea's announcement that she won't renew her E contract -- news only mildly buffered by her agent's supposedly having talked to a dozen potential suitors, and Handler's relatively young age -- I wanted to indulge in self-pity Big Time.

But this isn't about me. Let me see if I can act like Dave and make it about the guest, in this case him.

He has listened to everyone from Regis to supermodels, Johnny Depp to the senior Mrs. Letterman, with equal amounts of curiosity and respect. I always got the feeling it was his mother, and perhaps his father, who instilled in him long ago that one should pay attention to his guest. This probably started in the family livingroom in Indiana, many years ago, when that gap-toothed kid sought the big time out west, and then east.

It's ironic that I would tell my mom how great his interviewing skills are -- to which Mom would remark, "I used to not know how smart he was, and then I realized, 'wow, he really is." -- just a few days prior to this announcement. I'd therefore like to see Dave do occasional specials, perhaps leaning more on the interview and less (but not too much less) on the comedy, maybe in the manner of a Bill Maher interview when he brings out an author before starting with the roundtable for the night. Dave would be very effective at that.

Perhaps he could start with Jennifer Lawrence, whom he's wrapped up in a blanket and nearly interviewed under the covers already. After all, it's a testament to his charm that he can still get the darling Lawrence to flirt with him years after Drew Barrymore did her little dance. And she's not the only one--heck, I think I saw Johnny Depp flirting with him Thursday night.

But clearly, Dave's heart is tied up elsewhere.

For, after delivering his sad news to us, he made my sides split once again: "What this means now is Paul and I can be married!"

Photo: A young David Letterman after accepting his Emmy for Outstanding Writing in a Variety or Music Program,
1987, photo by Alan Light, via Flickr/Wikimedia Commons: (http://www.flickr.com/photos/alan-light/210403909/in/set-72157594230529525)

We should, but that doesn't mean me will

2014-03-26T16:39:00.000-07:00
I recently made the mistake of taking someone at their word. This was a PR, so yes, I realize that was my first mistake.

However, when I went back to read their previous e-mail supposedly promising me answers to some questions the next day, I saw that the publicist had said "should". Should as in "we should have them to you by tomorrow".

I then realized that top level publicists must be well-versed in the art of dishones-uh, I mean-putting-someone-offishness. Sorry, is there a proper word for this? Or should I hold off looking that up until tomorrow?

This subtle difference is, of course, clear when I tutor ESL and have to explain to my student that when one says "should" it is not definite, but more definite than "may" and certainly more than "could".

So why is it that I took a "should get it to you tomorrow" as definite? Was it because I was desperate to meet my deadline (which, by the way, has passed) or was I projecting my own integrity onto that of the PR? I believe it was the latter. And again, see first graf, that was my first mistake.

Now, I have my problems. I can be impulsive, reacting to people and incidents when I should - that's should mind you - let the profanity/lost keys/burnt toast/Vogue cover (Kim and Kanye--reallllllly?) - just roll off me.

But one thing I never do is mislead people. I wouldn't even know where to start. As it is, when I look at my CV and see "basic French" I think, 'Should I explain what my definition of 'basic' is?"

And is my honesty and transparency the reason I am not as rich as the other person on the end of that "should" e-mail? And will my haughty self-righteousness guarantee me a place in heaven, replete with seven male virgins (not that that would be attractive, but I'm an equal opportunity fantasizer.)

If I, for example, started saying "Should" tomorrow, with whom should I start? I know, my mother. Next time she asks if I am coming for Christmas, I will say, "I should expect so."

Of course that won't be good enough for Mom, a retired fifth grade teacher and now a substitute teacher in Texas.

"Should? You SHOULD choose your words more carefully."

"Okay, I WILL, I WILL come for Christmas."

I could, though, try "Should" on the bus driver. "I should pay the fare."

Eye roll. "Really? I SHOULD kick you off this bus."

"Oh, okay."

"Should" on my cat?

"I SHOULD feed you."

"MEOW".

"Oh, okay...."

...
Let's face it, I'm just not cut out for subterfuge. And it's probably too late for me to start emulating wealthier scribes who obviously have no regard for my time or my feelings. But apparently, what they do have regard for are the nuances of language.

And that is something I can respect.

Hashtag I wonder, hashtag if I am editorializing?

2014-03-05T14:07:00.001-08:00
Having just tweeted a story about a promising new AIDS drug cocktail for babies, I was left wondering if I was editorializing. Not by posting the story--though it could be argued that what a journalist chooses to post reflects her judgment and is hence, subjective--but by how I chose to hashtag it. This needs no explanation for anyone even remotely in or aware of the twittersphere; hashtag, notanewsflash.

So what are the rules about tweeting and journalism? If this has been written about somewhere, I am sure I haven't yet seen it. Sure, there are variations on this theme, such as how to add followers or find the right followers, how to create cool hastags and how to teach your dog to tweet.

But what about the hashtag itself?

I ask you, if I post one of my own articles such as I did today, regarding a decision in a New Orleans courthouse that upholds an earlier decision concerning payouts to businesses affected by the BP oil spill, if I hastag it #spillnews, am I editorializing? After all, there are spills every week, somewhere, to some degree, somewhere on the planet (I have not looked this up, but I, hashtag, am guessing.)

If I write #importantstory, that is obviously an editorial slant, but what about posting BP's point of view, linking to their press release?

I bring this up in part because in a recent blog I had published on Muck Rack, I discussed how PRs could win over the journalist. While I received largely flattering and favorable feedback, there was one sad sack on a Linkedin Group who dragged me over hot coals, accusing me of heading into the dark side myself if I wrote about, as I called it, "rogue Republicans".

I never quite did get his message, and I am kidding about the sad sack bit (don't know him), but the effect on me was actually more long lasting than anything the flatterers had to say. Here's why: we have to really keep a close guard on this thing we call journalistic integrity because it's threatening to slip away with every tweet.

I actually heard on John Tesh last night -- and I make no apologies for loving his radio show -- that people cuss more on social media than they do in person. Well, I certainly don't, but that is because I know Big Brother or Sister at my next dream job is watching me. (Also, my swear words aren't that imaginative. If I was a really good cusser like Chelsea Handler or Bill Maher, that might be a different story.)

So if we cuss our way through our tweets and hashtag everything, what's left of our objective journalistic self? Sure, Hunter S. Thompson would have loved the twittersphere and would have been hashtagging his way to the hash. He would have thought up all new swear words to hashtag: #slore (That was one a 20-something shared with me during a jealous rage a few years ago; and if you can't figure out what it means, psst: it's two words in one.)

I urge everyone who tweets and practices journalism, especially professionally, to take a more cautious approach to their next post. If you post a story about the president visiting Connecticut, don't tell me #excitedashell or #gagmewithamicrophone.

Keep your opinions to yourself. Unless, of course, you want to find a job in digital marketing, in which case there are #alotmorelucrativeopportunities.

All in the family - urp!

2014-02-26T07:07:00.002-08:00
Writers need to be careful with their words. I am finding this to be more and more true as the dizzying race to create the smallest, fastest and sleekest mobile devices threatens to put us all out of business.

While it's bad enough that everyday people can't use words correctly -- everything from saying "your" when one means "you're" to using "me" instead of "I" and vice-versa -- the blight has now hit my profession.

Apart from poor and wrong word choice and grammatical sins, writers aren't giving a smidge about cultural and social sensitivity. Oh, you think I'm wrong about this? How many of you have turned on your TVs only to be sold to "your family"? You pet your dog/cat and are stumped. 'Are they speaking to me? I use/spray/devour deoderant/pest repellant/licorice, too!'

Well, here in America apparently non-families are the silent huge minority. How huge?

According to Nov. 2013 census data from the US Government, a whopping 31.4 percent of adults (defined as ages 15-85+ years), had never been married. According to the same survey, another 10.2 percent had been divorced; 2.2 percent were separated; 5.7 percent widowed; and 1.4 percent were defined as married but with a "spouse absent" (not sure how that is different from "separated", but hey, I'm enjoying being single.)

The majority of adults, 49.1 percent, were defined as married with a spouse present. Forty-nine point one percent. Apparently, enough to drive an entire trend in advertising, one that appeals only to families and only marginally to singles. Gay families are being included, as they should, at quite a clip but where's the love for we singles?

Admittedly, including teenagers in your sample is going to skew the results, and it did. To be fair, Census data shows that in my age group and others in the 40s-to-50s, the number jumps to over 60 percent. Yet, statistics still show that the number of divorces is significant, and in my age group, even higher than the number of never-marrieds.

Why is advertising discriminating against us, then?

It's almost as if Bridget Jones made the advertising community wary of anyone who could or would choose to enjoy the single life. Women especially are seen as less than. I remember while other little girls were dreaming about their weddings, I was dreaming about my children. When I was unable to have them, I certainly didn't care about a wedding anymore. I started dreaming about my career, the next trip to Europe, my cat Wally and yes, some exotic man on a barstool in France.

I think what is wrong with America is our feigned puritanical streak. Remember Hollande's visit? The big story on CNN and other news outlets was how to seat the man, singly, at this big fancy dinner. Honestly, do you think Michelle and Barack Obama cared one whig? I think Michelle even dug the chance to keep the spotlight solely on herself (and she did look fab in that Carolina Herrera gown, I must say.)

I'm not against families; I'm not against marriage or suburbia or middle-aged paunches. I'm against SUVs for environmental reasons, but that's another story....

So dear Advertisers of America (and I'm speaking to you, Sprint, with your "Framily" plan - and by the way, it took me a minute to figure out that wasn't just a misspelling), throw we singles a bone. We buy and decorate homes, throw lavish and not so lavish parties, eat chicken wings, put up Christmas lights and yes, suffer from indigestion and hemorrhoids just like the rest of you.

Happy 10th birthday, Facebook (I think)

2014-02-04T06:20:00.000-08:00
Looking back at 2008, when I joined Facebook, I remember the following: I was on my way to Prague and Paris, holed up in a hotel the night before my flight. I'd heard Michael Phelps mention something called his Facebook account during an interview from the Olympics.

'Facebook?' what's that? Anything Phelps did, from eating Subway sandwiches to hugging his mother to swimming the butterfly resonated with me. No matter that I was a grown woman, the axiom: If Michael Phelps jumped off a bridge, would you? completely applied to me.

So I got a Facebook account.

And with it, two friends.

Then three.

I don't remember who my first FB friends were (sorry) but within the first couple years, I was friends with about five ex-boyfriends I'd dredged up from all points east, west and overseas. I'd found cousins - first, second, third, and I don't know are we related? - and grouped them as "family". I even friended and then unfriended at least three family members, because I was starting to find that Facebook. like the Thanksgiving dinner table, was just that emotional.

I "liked" Michael Phelps. My first like. I loved getting all his pictures and updates from vacations with buddies, following his romances and endorsements and swims.

But soon, within just a few months, I wanted to scream: "Darn you, Michael Phelps!"

I was receiving invitations from people I didn't even remember from high school, from cousins I never liked, from boyfriends who left me bawling in bathrooms like on a bad episode of "Girls". I was spending at least half an hour a day checking my page, then updating my page, then updating my profile photo.

Within the first couple years, I went from one half hour a day to probably two hours a day. Facebook eclipsed my TV watching, or I'd watch, say, "Modern Family" but have one eye trained on the laptop.

Facebook.

The relationship wasn't quite so dysfunctional with Twitter, even though I'd heard many people checked their Twitter crawl first thing in the morning.

Not me. I was all about tracking down that guy whom I dated after my sophomore year in high school, and when I found him, thought of him while at grown-up interviews in the real world, at home as I posed for my new profile photos, as I giggled with girlfriends on line. (Can you giggle on line?)

He and I mutually decided to end the Facebook friendship -- he was taken, after all -- and this hurt me all over again. Not as much as at 15 when it had happened for real, but it still picked at the wound. "You always seem to come back into my life when I'm heading in the wrong direction," C. wrote from his hovel in Hawaii.

Thanks.

What the bleep did that mean?

Facebook.

I liked dozens of things, then unliked them when I realized the cool kids didn't like much. My first love only liked two things, so I'd be like him. When I found that his ex had a profile shot on the ski slopes, I thought I'd do the same. Yes, I loved skiing, but this really sealed it for me.

I was starting to crack, so much so that by 2013 I had something like 5,000 photos uploaded. I had over 200 friends, a "normal" amount, and I actually knew about a tenth of them.

It became foggy whom I had met in the real world versus who was an actual friend.

This is when I decided to take a step back from Facebook. I started logging on every other day - at least for a week. I was proud of this, in the way I was proud when I eased off smoking.

Now, I don't want to quit Facebook -- how else would I keep track of my mom in Texas? -- but I don't want it to run my life.

I also fantasize about the day when I'll travel the world meeting all my Facebook friends in person. When I was in LA, I wanted to spend time with one of those friends, but didn't realize we weren't really that close in real life. That friendship soon ended. Part of me says if we can't be real friends, why are we on Facebook together?

That would bring my total "friends" list to about 15, though, and no one wants to see that.

Happy 10th Birthday, Facebook.

I think.