my 2 cents

Scouts still getting it wrong

 

The big news today is that the Boy Scouts of America have (sort of) relaxed their policy on allowing gay people into the Scouts.

When this last hit the news last summer, I wrote that while I am proud to be an Eagle Scout, I am ashamed by the position the Scouts organization has taken on gays.  For an organization that espouses honor and doing your duty to fellow man, their position has been troubling to me. 

Just as troubling is the way the Scouts have been handling this.  After fighting change at first, their recent vote only goes part way and smacks of cowardice.  Their decision applies only to Scouts and not the leaders.  So a person who is gay and wants to be a leader in his son's troop is still banned, assuming he is a pedophile or a sexual predator.  That's a pretty sweeping and unfair assumption.

The public statement by the chief executive of the Scouts compounds the wrong position the group has been taking.  As reported in The New York Times, he called his group's decision "compassionate, caring and kind."  Really?!!  So that means they've been dispassionate, uncaring and hateful up till the other day.  Bad PR.

I know it's a tough situation, since there are still many who have a fear of gay people and don't want  their kids around them.  Go back a few generations and those fears were also aimed at blacks, Jews and others who didn't fit the whitebread America model.  We've come a long way, but sadly this group that can and does do so much good for young people is still out of touch with today's reality.

I hope they can get themselves into the 21st century... on my honor, I hope so.

 

 

Unsung Heroes

 

We're waking up this morning to scenes of devastation and heartbreak in Oklahoma.

The media are talking about the difficult and heroic work being done by first responders -- police, firefighters, EMT and medical personnel, and neighbors helping neighbors, strangers helping strangers.  Bad things often bring out the best in us.

It's clear that there's another group of heroes who deserve our praise and thanks -- teachers and school personnel.  With two schools hit during yesterday's tornado, it was teachers who stood the front line for our children.

We entrust the most precious things in our lives -- our children -- to teachers.  In normal times, they do the heroic job of teaching our kids the 3Rs and lots more ... teamwork, good behavior, self-esteem.

But in the face of danger -- be it yesterday's tornado or last December's terror at a school in Newtown, Conn. -- the true heroism of our teachers shines brightly.  We're hearing stories of teachers who shielded their students from falling debris with their own bodies and teachers who stayed with their kids until they were reunited with their parents rather than rushing off to check on their own families and homes.

We don't thank them enough, these everyday heroes.

 

Newspapers ARE the News

 

Newspapers are making news in a few unrelated developments over the past several days. 

First, a few of the biggest daily papers have seen circulation jumps this past quarter, thanks mainly, it seems, to paywalls.  I would have thought paywalls would discourage those who've been used to getting free access to papers online, but it looks like I'm wrong.  Perhaps many who've become dependent on papers online for their news and information still want that news and they're now willing to pay for it.  So some who didn't purchase a daily paper at all are now paying for one, albeit, the online edition.

Three of the five biggest dailies in the U.S. have increased their readership, mostly via new digital subscriptions.  The Wall Street Journal increased its circulation by 12.3 percent, with about 30 percent of circulation now coming from digital.  The New York Times swapped places with USA Today to become the nation's 2nd biggest paper, up by 17.6 percent.  If my calculations are close, it looks like digital comprises about 40 percent of the Times' circulation.

The L.A. Times held onto the #4 spot, with a 6 percent circulation gain.  It looks like the L.A. Times has a little more than 20 percent of its readers online.  USA Today, in 3rd place, dropped by almost 8 percent, possibly due to decreases in travel in this still struggling economy.  And the N.Y. Daily News dropped by 11 percent, holding onto the #5 spot but suffering from its ongoing battle with the NY Post and what seems to be an uneven editorial product.

Average readership of the 593 dailies in the U.S. slipped by .7 percent from a year ago, which isn't as drastic as year-to-year declines have been over the past several years.

Another piece of newspaper news comes out of New Orleans, where the longtime mainstay The Times-Picayune was cut to three print editions a week several months ago.  

In an interesting twist, the paper last week announced plans to launch a 3-times-a-week print tabloid that will be sold only at retail and not via home delivery.  The 75-cent paper, to be called TPStreet, will begin sometime this summer.

In The New York Times report about this, they say many New Orleans residents are mocking the news, claiming the publisher should have listened to readers of the Times-Picayune who said the digital experiement wouldn't succeed.

And the final piece of newspaper news is talk that the ultra-conservative industrialist billionaires the Koch brothers are looking to buy The L.A. Times and several other papers.  There's talk of reporters and editors threatening to quit rather than work for the brothers, and some people are voicing concern over large daily papers possibly becoming conservative political bullhorns.

I don't see it that way, for a couple of reasons.  Even the biggest and best dailies don't dominate a city's news and way of thinking the way they may have decades ago, before 24-hour cable news and all the online news sources.  And look at The Wall Street Journal, which people thought would become a conservative pulpit when Rupert Murdoch bought it.  Yes, the editorials are often reflective of a conservative view, but the reporting still seems to be fair and unbiased, just as The NY Times runs liberal views on its editorial and Op-Ed pages, but reports the news fairly.  If Koch-owned newspapers can do the same, it's not necessarily a bad thing, since their ownership will keep more journalists employed and more papers in business.

And that's the news in the newspaper business these days.

 

 

 

Withholding News

 

Joe Mandese, editor in chief at MediaPost, poses some interesting questions that news people face in the wake of tragic events like yesterday's bombings at the Boston Marathon.  His headline asks a pointed question -- How will our nation change?

He notes that terrorists and other crazies who shoot schoolchildren or people in theaters or who blow up buildings often want to see their names out there, and also want to publicize whatever cause they are championing.  Joe asks if the news media should withhold the names of these perpetrators, and not make public their grievances and causes they want to advance.

We, the public, want to know every detail.  But this is not an OJ Simpson trial, taking place in a court of law.  This is about random mass killings and hurting lots of innocent and unsuspecting people.  Perhaps we shouldn't know the bomber's name or what organization, if any, he is affiliated with.  Why give air to a crazy person's viewpoints?  Doesn't the media attention simply encourage others to use terrorist tactics to get their 15 minutes of fame?

There's a precedent for withholding information.  News media, for the most part, respect a rape victim's privacy by not using her name or showing her picture.  Minor children are usually afforded the same treatment.

We want to know details.  We have a right to have details.  But perhaps there are times when we must let it go, as a way to blunt the impact and effectiveness of terrorist acts.

It's a good question you raise, Joe.  It's a tricky decision for journalists to make. 

 

I just don't get it

Sickening politics waters down gun legislation

 

It's really pathetic how fearful politicians are of the National Rifle Association. I guess, though, when you think of how much money the gun lobby controls, it's understandable.  But where are the politicians' balls when it comes to making real progress on an issue that brought the nation to its knees only a few months ago with the senseless shootings in quiet, little Newtown, Conn.

The President spoke about finally getting tough, and most of us cheered. 

Our leaders in Congress were moved to tears when they met with families of victims from Connecticut... and Colorado and Arizona and so many other places where guns (I know, I should say people with guns) shot and killed innocent people just going about their everyday lives in movie theaters and shopping malls and walking down the streets.  So how, then, did we get to where we are now, with such toothless, watered-down legislation being brought to the table for our lawmakers to consider?

Some more background checks.  OK, that's good.  But what happened to legislation that would make it illegal -- or at least more difficult -- for citizens to get things like assault weapons and clips that hold multiple rounds of ammunition?  Do hunters really need military-style weapons to kill deer and ducks?  Who needs to be able to shoot dozens of rounds in a matter of seconds?  Certainly not hunters.  That sort of equipment is for trained police, soldiers and security personnel, but not for our next-door neighbors.

I'm generally anti-gun, but I've tried to be understanding of those who want to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.  But I just don't get why some people -- led by the NRA -- feel they need such high-powered killing machines. 

And I just don't get why our elected officials are acting like scared followers instead of the leaders we elected them to be.

I just don't get it, and I just don't like it.

  

 

 

Too big to fail?

 

Attorney General Eric Holder re-ignited the discussion about some banks being too big to fail with his comments last week. 

Andrew Ross Sorkin, writing in today's New York Times, seems to support the idea by pointing to some examples of business failures that had a substantial impact that went beyond a paper loss in the stock market.  He uses as an example the case of Arthur Andersen, the accounting giant that got caught up in the Enron debacle.  When the company was indicted and then went under, 28,000 people lost their jobs.

I can see Holder's point that some businesses might need to be immune to indictment or prosecution because of the overall economic impact that might ensue.  But if companies can't be prosecuted, then certainly people should be -- especially those whose greed or arrogance caused them to do things in a company's name that are illegal or unethical.

Big fines and penalties should be imposed on companies who behave badly, although perhaps not so stiff that they might knock the company out of business.  But the  people doing the bad things and those knowingly allowing them to happen -- even at the very highest management levels -- should be held accountable with the real theat of huge fines and real jail time.  Perhaps those threats will make businesspeople think carefully before treading close to or over the line of legality and ethics.

No individual should be too big to fail.

 

You've got to be kidding! NRA breaks silence after Newtown

I didn't see the news conference by NRA spoksespeson.  I'm basing this on what I've seen reported in the trade press so far.

But I just cannot believe the position taken by the NRA in its first public statement since the tragic Newtown shootings a week ago. 

According to one trade pub, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre “blamed violent video games and movies, the media, gun-free zones in schools and other factors,” the report says, adding that LaPierre “said that the students in Newtown might have been better protected had officials at Sandy Hook Elementary been armed.

In a statement probably designed to boost gun sales, he also said "putting a police officer in every single school in America might make schools safer.”  He added,  "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."  He didn't address the question of how did the bad guy get the gun in the first place?

I hate guns, but I do understand the basis of the Second Ammendment.  I don't think, however, the framers of the Constitution and the Ammendments were thinking of assault weapons and automatics with clips that hold multiple shells.  These firearms are designed to kill many people quickly.  Why would an ordinary citizen need such a weapon? 

The NRA, in its statement, seemed to be playing clearly to their most staunch constituents.  And totally off-putting to anyone else -- even someone who might be a moderate on the sensitive issue.

Instead of saying that guns are part of (even a very small part) of the problem, the NRA simply goes on the attack, placing blame everywhere but on guns, gun owners and matters of gun control.  The NRA places blame for gun violence on the media and even on gun-free zones near schools.  Say what!!  Gun-free zones near schools are the cause of mass shootings?!!

From a PR point of view, the NRA statement will backfire by rallying those already angered and frustrated by gun violence to take stronger action.  Instead of just scratching their heads and bemoaning the situation to friends, many more people -- spurred by the NRA's terrible PR positioning -- will become more active, pushing their Congressmen, backing politicians who are pro-gun control, and, if necessary, taking to the streets to keep the outrage going and the issue front and center on the nationbal agenda.

So, Mr. NRA CEO - nice going.  

By the way, you might take a closer look at whomever is advising you on PR matters.  They just helped you win a big one -- for the other side. 

Newtown

 

 

Sadly, now we all know where this small Connecticut town is.

What we don't know, but can only imagine, is the terror felt by parents waiting for news of their children.  We can only imagine the strength overcoming fear that enabled heroic teachers to do what they could to protect their precious little ones and try to shield them from "the bad guys."

What we probably can't imagine, unfortunately, is a world where guns are available only to bonafide police and public safety personnel.  The deep pockets and influence of the gun lobby makes that hard to imagine, despite all the talk we'll soon hear from politicians.

That, too, is sad.

 

...

My daughter Jennifer sent me her thoughts as she was getting ready to take our grandson Jack to school this Monday morning, up in Maine...

It is snowing right now, a beautiful silent scene, evoking the simple childhood joys of the first snow of the season.  All is calm, all is quiet, all is untouched. There are no tracks worn in, no tire marks making the clean canvas a sight for sore eyes. It is simple.
 

I want to keep it that way, bottle it up and let no one walk upon it. Let it just be, so pure, as nature intended.

But for better or worse, that is not how it is. It is impossible to live in a bottle.

And so, it is in the middle of this beauty, that my stomach churns with anxiety and sadness and horror, as I prepare to send my 7 year old off to school this morning. His sweet, pure, freshly falling snow of a soul. His world is different than mine. He doesn't know of the evil, of the impossible to make sense of. He knows nothing of Sandy Hook.

I cry endless tears for the families that lost their loved ones. There are no words. And I cry for my children too. For knowing that the simple, clean snow they play upon can not stay that way forever. Mud and dirt and sand will creep in and there is no stopping it. I mourn for the families in Newtown, and I mourn for the loss of my innocent children's understanding of this world.

For now, I will watch the snow fall. Soon, I will drop my older son off at school and pray- something I just do not do. I will pray for his safety, for his innocence, and for his heart.

And when he comes home, as I know he will, we will run and laugh and play in the snow-- plowed through and grit covered as it may be.

And we will laugh and we will love, and I will shed a silent tear.

Childhood is fleeting. The world shows its ugly face too soon.
I will try, hard as I might, to shelter my children from all that is evil, from the very knowledge of its existence even. But I can't.

And so we go on.

 

 

Say it isn't so.... please

Hostess has been having financial problems for a while, including going into bankruptcy in 2004 and again earlier this year.  But this time, it doesn't look good for the maker of iconic baked goods including Wonder Bread, Hostess Cup Cakes and Twinkies.

For those of us who grew up in the '50s and '60s, we all knew that "Wonder Bread builds strong bodies eight ways."  I can't recall what those eight ways were, but it had to be true because Howdy Doody and Buffalo Bob told us so.  Wonder Bread was THE key ingredient for all sandwiches.  (This was before bagels became an American food.) 

And Twinkies.  What more could a kid want for a well-balanced nutritious meal?

My favorite was -- and still is -- Hostess Cup Cakes, the ones with either the golden or chocolate topping and the white squiggle down the middle.  I still rely on those to keep me going on a long drive.  It's automatic -- stop to get gas, go to the bathroom, and get a package of Hostess Cup Cakes.

The news reports are saying Hostess has filed a motion to shut its plants, lay off 18,000 workers and liquidate its business.

Please... say it isn't so.

 

 

The mouth that roared shuts his wallet

 

My friend Robin, a Brooklyn girl through and through, called me today from her home in L.A. to see how I had weathered the storm.  Thank goodness, we had no damage and only suffered through the relative inconvenience of having no power for four days.  Compared to what some in Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and New Jersey lost, I'm one of the lucky ones.

Robin said she wonders why some New York and New Jersey-born  celebs haven't stepped up to make major donations to help feed and shelter the 40,000 or so newly-homeless.

I reminded her that Springsteen, Bon Jovi and Billy Joel headlined the fundraiser on NBC.  Others have, I'm sure, offered financial help, even if they haven't publicized it.  And some, like Barbara Walters, George Stephanapolous and Diane Sawyer did publicize their donations -- which I feel diminishes the act of giving -- but they gave, nonetheless.  (Perhaps ABC pushed the word out, so their stars would look good after NBC hosted the on-air fundraiser.)

But Robin reminded me that one prominent New Yorker -- who NEVER forgets to publicize anything he does -- was silent and invisible after our ordeal here.  Where, she asked, was Donald Trump, who has made his riches from real estate in New York and also in Atlantic City.  His wealth, in fact, came largely from his father, who owned many apartment buildings in Queens -- one of the harder-hit boroughs.  We haven't heard a word about any money from Trump to help his fellow New Yorkers.

Instead, it seems, he's been busy touting his friendship with Mitt Romney and then, following the election, crying like a spoiled baby who didn't get his way.  For a man who had been considering a run for the nation's top office, he has not acted Presidential or even like a responsible leader by making crazy statements like "the election is a sham and a travesty" or calling for "a revolution in this country."

He took his crazy tweets down after there was a public outrage, but still... he made these and other divisive statements publicly.

When NBC's Brian Williams called him out for this, he started name-calling and compared the ratings for his "Apprentice" show to Williams' newscast, saying, "Wouldn't you love to have my ratings?"

Trump would better serve his own reputation and his brand if he reached out to help the get the city that made him rich through the aftermath of the hurricane. I've heard from many people who would never choose to live in a building bearing his name, because he has done such damage to his name.  To many, rather than representing luxury and elegance, Trump represents tackiness and hucksterism.

By the way, I do agree that the Electoral College system is antiquated and needs to be replaced by a simple popular vote.  But calling for a revolution is not the way for a supposed leader to try to bring about change.