blog.vanillacokehead.com

Perhaps the City of Cuyahoga Falls should have heeded this classic advice from “The Odd Couple” while hammering out details of the financial arrangements to redevelop the old State Road Shopping Center property.

The financial arrangements involved forging an agreement between the City and the Cuyahoga Falls Board of Education to reallocate property tax dollars to help fund the acquisition, demolition, and site preparation of the shopping center to allow for the proposed Portage Crossing development to proceed. The project entails replacing the 50-year-old shopping center with new construction for retail and other use.

The progress on Portage Crossing ground to a halt a couple of weeks ago when the school board rejected the proposed agreement to reallocate property tax dollars between itself and the city. After negotiations and adding some assurances for the school board, the two groups came to an agreement on splitting the property tax revenue Portage Crossing should generate once the project is developed.

One comment from Cuyahoga Falls Mayor Don Robart made me shudder – saying that the Cuyahoga Falls Board of Education held the project hostage:

“It’s unfortunate that the School Board held the project hostage for a couple weeks…”

With all due respect, Mayor Robart, excuse me?

Perhaps the city should have examined possible missteps on its part before pointing fingers at the school board.

It appears to me that the city assumed that the school board would just “rubber stamp” the agreement to reallocate property tax revenue between itself and the city. The school board was correct to say “wait a minute”, review the agreement, and work with the city to make sure the agreement was in the best interests of everyone involved.

Don’t get me wrong – I want the proposed Portage Crossing project to proceed – and succeed. But I also give the school board credit for having the political courage to slow things down a little and make sure the agreement is in everyone’s best interest.

A public entity making sure an agreement involving tax dollars is in the best interest of its constituents is not and should not be characterized as holding a project hostage. The Cuyahoga Falls Board of Education did its job – and did it well – in this case.

As you may or may not know, kid 1.0 (aka Emma-Grace) had her first communion yesterday. To celebrate, my wife Trish and I had planned afterward to have dinner for about 15 at Dontino’s, a small Italian restaurant near the church.

Trish called Dontino’s a couple of weeks ago – and was told it would be no problem for them to accommodate us – she was told to call an hour or two ahead to give them a heads-up.

When Trish called, she was told by a Dontino’s staff member that they couldn’t seat all of us together – that we’d be split into two groups. Nice to see they kept their word.

Luckily Trish had called a couple of other places – and we resorted to “Plan B” – which probably ended up better after all. Our party of 15 – and the money it would have brought Dontino’s – ended up at a nearby Bob Evans location.

I called the Bob Evans – the manager answered and was more than happy to host us. She said they’d keep a side room for us – and when we arrived after mass things were all ready. The servers and manager bent over backwards to make it an enjoyable meal and a wonderful family and friends experience. They even gave Emma-Grace her meal for free in honor of her special occasion.

I was more than happy to generously tip the two people at Bob Evans who took care of us.

In short, Bob Evans ruled and Dontino’s drooled.

NOTE: “Kaiser Bill” is the affectionate title for Bill Klaus, the head honcho at Media-Com, the owner of Akron-area news/talk radio station WNIR, along with LPTV stations WAOH and WAX, channels 35 and 29, affiliates of the Retro TV network. This post is an open letter to “Kaiser Bill”…

Bill,

The current schedule (PDF link) for Channels 35 and 29 shows that “Dragnet” is supposed to be aired Monday through Friday at 5:30 pm. I absolutely love “Dragnet” – and I have my DVR programmed to record the show each weekday at 5:30.

More often than not lately, when I pull up a “Dragnet” episode on my DVR, I instead get an infomercial for Humana health insurance. It’s mildly disappointing – not to mention a waste of my time and of hard drive space on my DVR.

I can understand your decision to preempt “Dragnet” for paid programming. Given the current generally crappy state of affairs in the media industry, owners of radio and TV stations need to make money wherever they can, however they can.

But if you’re gonna routinely preempt a scheduled show for paid programming – please do viewers a favor and not get our hopes up for a classic TV show – and update your program listings to reflect what you’re actually going to put on the air.

I thank you. And my DVR thanks you. Cheers!

Sincerely,

Brian Heath

You may or may not know of the 1976 movie, “Logan’s Run” (based on the 1967 book of the same name). The film centers on a society in the 23rd Century where people are killed off at age 30.

So many times during the last few years, I’ve seen media organizations deal with the tanking economy and changing landscape of entertainment and information by cutting staff. More often than not, the people targeted to be tossed first are those with the most seniority and the biggest paychecks. Often the wisest and most respected people in newsrooms or at TV or radio stations are the ones first shown the door.

It seems a lot of businesses, in and out of the media industry, are putting targets on the heads of those people over 50 – some firms specifically target those people for force reductions by offering early retirement – others take the stealth and sinister route of railroading said people off the payroll by building files on them then firing them or by making work life so loathsome that said people quit.

Whatever way businesses choose to trim their payrolls and workforces, the way older workers are often treated is reminiscent of the movie “Logan’s Run”. It’s sad that in so many businesses, age and longevity have become liabilities rather than assets.

…nothing better to stoke peace on earth and goodwill toward fellow human beings than what I just saw at a Quiznos restaurant in Akron.

While waiting for my lunch to be made, I was subjected to some rather disturbing drama behind the counter. A stocky man (I think he was the owner of the restaurant) rushed into the store – and immediately verbally “ripped a new one” into a young man. The “boss” chewed the young man out and used at least two of the “seven dirty words” in the process. The main thing I gathered from the semi-hushed tirade from the “boss” was that the young man was being fired.

I’m not sure what behavior was being addressed on the young man’s part – I don’t want to know – and it’s none of my damned business. What DID bother me, though, was that the “boss” didn’t even have the decency – or the class – to address the young man’s behavior in private. He decided to administer his own form of “justice” openly – in front of a co-worker and at least three customers at the counter.

I thought it was “management 101″ to praise in public and punish in private. I guess the “boss” didn’t get the memo about that.

If I hadn’t already ordered my sub, I would have walked out there and then. I’ve decided that that particular Quiznos location has been scratched off my “lunch rotation” from now on…

This whole issue affects people depending on the type of boss one has: the time a worker is expected to arrive at work versus the start time of a scheduled shift.

Some former bosses of mine expected my co-workers and myself to arrive a few minutes early to be ready to work at the start of a shift. Others were more laid back and merely considered the start time an arrival time.

The most annoying times when this issue reared its head came when I worked in television news. Bosses in TV news tend to expect news photographers to be ready to go out on stories right at the start of a shift. In most such cases (mine included) news photographers came in about 10 or 15 minutes early to check their news vehicles, gather their gear, batteries, and tapes, and load their news cars. In many cases, this wasn’t considered “on the clock” time. I’d probably have made a few thousand more dollars during the seven years I worked in TV news had I been paid for that “prep time” before my shift officially started.

The biggest peeve I had about doing this “prep work” was when a reporter, producer, news manager, or other person “on the desk” would rush someone out the door while said work was being done. If spot news was happening and someone needed to go immediately, I gladly understood. More often than not, though, it was a manifestation of “piss poor planning” on the part of the assignment desk. In these latter cases, I often felt as if I had been taken advantage of.

Here’s a somewhat embarrassing example during my days in Jackson, Mississippi: I got rushed out the door while getting ready – schlepped at light speed to the State Capitol – and was the last news crew to arrive at a press conference with then-Governor Kirk Fordice. The reporter working with me apologized to the governor – who replied with a great zinger, “Y’all are always late!”. Ouch!

In this case, my shift began at 9:30 am. The assignment desk sent the reporter and me to a 9:30 press conference – something that had been on the calendar for at least a couple of days. Would it have killed someone in authority in our newsroom to bring one of us photographers in at 8:30 or 9:00 so we got to the press conference on time?

Frankly, I’m torn on this issue. The hardass in me wants to say, “you want me in early? the time clock starts ticking when I arrive!” to bosses who expect me to prepare for work before the time a scheduled shift starts. The conscientious worker in me considers this an issue of taking pride in one’s job – and doesn’t mind coming in a few minutes early to be ready at the start of a shift. I gravitate towards the latter stance.

To me this is another example of the often-shifting boundaries between “company time” and “personal time”…

…the big trend in the broadcast TV industry right now entails doing more things with fewer people: hiring multi-platform journalists who can do stories solo (shooting, editing, writing, and reporting), streamlining workflow so fewer people can do the same work (using servers for video playback and centralcasting master control functions), developing local TV pool arrangements between competing stations, and even running more than one station out of the same facility.

There are a number of things that are hastening this tendency for the media business to “squeeze blood from a turnip”: ad dollars being sucked away from TV, radio, and print to new media; people consuming more media from computers and personal media devices than terrestrial radio and TV; the multichannel universe of cable and satellite TV fragmenting audiences; the ownership of broadcast properties becoming more bottom line driven; and of course, the current economic climate shaking out a lot of the weaker players in the media business.

I want to rewind a little bit – about 20 years. I think the beginning of the “broadcast boom” that led to the current “broadcast bust” was the launch of the Fox television network in the late 80s. As the 90s arrived, most of the new Fox affiliates launched news operations – increasing the number of jobs for broadcast journalists. Before this time, in most television markets there were three choices for local news: the ABC, CBS, and NBC affiliates. In larger markets, there may or may not have been local news on one or more independent TV stations.

During the late 80s and early 90s, it seemed that almost every week one could find one or two help wanted ads to help launch a news operation for a Fox affiliate somewhere. Many of my former TV news colleagues found jobs with these fledgling newsrooms.

During the 90s the broadcast journalism bubble expanded. Then as the 21st century arrived, the bubble began to bust. Ownership changed for TV stations – owners were permitted to hold on to more properties. Regulatory oversight became less stringent. The public interest was frequently jettisoned in favor of the bottom line as a primary driver of decision-making. Accountants and investment bankers looked at media properties more as profit centers than as public trustees (in broadcast licensing lingo). Journalists and those with pure broadcast backgrounds, those with higher motivations than profit, were squeezed out of the business decision making loop.

This is when the traditional media business began to go to hell in a handbasket. Media properties were expected to become “widget factories” where quality is more important than quantity. Genuine local content is being homogenized into standardized media pabulum. Many local news operations have gone from becoming watchdogs to lapdogs. Veteran journalists are ditched in favor of younger, cheaper talent.

I don’t know how the media business will be 20 years from now – but it’s still kind of sad to how it evolved – and how now it’s devolving. I left the media business 13 years ago – Independence Day 1996 was the day. There are days I miss working in TV news. But seeing what’s become of broadcast journalism nowadays – and of the broader media industry – I often think I got out at the right time. Former Cleveland news anchor Tim White put it so well last year in his farewell message: “I do worry that the news business is becoming more business than news.”

The death at age 92 late Friday of legendary newsman Walter Cronkite wasn’t a huge surprise but still hit me – and many others – like a ton of bricks. One didn’t have to work – or have worked – in the world of journalism – print or electronic – to appreciate his lasting impact on the profession.

And that last word, “profession”, is a key to understanding his legacy. Other departed icons in the field such as Edward R. Murrow, John Chancellor, and Jim McKay, along with Walter Cronkite, were among the last of a generation of pioneers for whom broadcast journalism (local and national) was purely a profession. These people, along with many others, considered it an honor, a privilege, and a seriously-taken responsibility to inform the public.

As the 21st Century begins, while there are still many in the journalism profession who still consider it a seriously-taken responsibility to inform the public, former WKYC-TV anchor Tim White put it best when he said farewell to the Cleveland airwaves in the fall of 2008: “I do worry that the news business is becoming more business than news.”

And any business venture needs to be profitable to stay afloat – broadcasters and newspaper publishers and others in the “information media business” aren’t immune from this natural law of business. However, during the last 28 years since the departure of Walter Cronkite from the daily national airwaves, information media have largely become diluted and been rendered shadows of what they once were.

This dilution has been hastened by a legal and regulatory environment that has made a joke out of the once hallowed and sacred words, “the public interest”, the standard by which the Federal Communications Commission is supposed to watch over the airwaves. A more accurate regulatory standard nowadays is “the private interest”.

One can also thank the increasing corporate homogenization in the media industry – that has forced a dwindling of the number of different voices in the local and national media landscape. One can thank media consultants who have steered media organizations into giving people more “sizzle” and less “steak” (i.e. using the clichéd and often misleading term “breaking news”) – and more style than substance (i.e. doing “dog lick” live shots at 11pm from a black hole in the middle of nowhere).

One can thank the “bean counters” who care more about balance sheets than credibility – and have turned journalists into replaceable “cogs” in a news “machine” – and tossed aside long-time anchors and reporters to make way for younger, cheaper, inexperienced “talent”. One can thank clueless managers and owners (cough*SamZell*cough) who regard media properties as little more than game pieces on a giant “Monopoly” board and don’t give a tinker’s damn about the integrity and quality of the work produced by said media properties.

And perhaps the nature of the medium I’m using now, the Internet, bears a lot of the blame, too. With people not just watching at six or eleven, listening at the top or bottom of the hour, or reading the paper in the morning or afternoon – and the advent of “the 24 hour news cycle” – for many media organizations “getting it first” has overtaken “getting it right” as a primary goal.

And the words of my long-time friend Traci about Walter Cronkite’s passing echo the sentiments of many: “I wish we had more broadcasters of this caliber today – where’s the objectivity now?”

You’re right, Traci. Objective, fact-checked, well-researched journalism done by people who know what the hell they’re doing has been supplanted in many arenas by agenda-driven, off-the-cuff, superficial pabulum delivered by blow-dried, airbrushed talking heads whose most notable talent is being able to read a TelePrompter and smile on cue.

God’s speed, Walter Cronkite. There will never again be anyone like you – IMO no one will even come close. Thanks for embodying what broadcast journalism should be…

…a friend of mine replied to my concerns about more schools instituting mandatory summer reading programs. The high school from which I graduated has assigned summer reading – for incoming freshmen all the way to those who’ll be seniors. Students are expected to take notes on this reading and complete at the beginning of the school year assignments based on this summer reading. The friend replied jokingly that “reading and writing” were over-rated.

I said in my original Twitter post that required summer reading programs in schools violate the boundaries between “school” and “home”. While I understand the rationale for such required reading, I think it dampens the whole concept of students having a “summer break”. Students shouldn’t have school work hanging over their heads during this time.

If schools want academic accountability for work assigned during the summer – they shouldn’t be telling students early June through late August is “summer break”. They should just keep the kids in school during this time. For a while, I’ve thought that schools across the board should go to a full-year schedule. Here’s why:

1) The original intent of having a summer break from school was so children could assist with farming on the family fields. Since farming has turned mostly into a full-time profession with paid workers in the fields – for virtually all families, this is a moot point.

2) Year-round school has the potential to increase retention of material learned – and lessen the need to review at the beginning of each academic year. More could be learned in an academic year or those needing help could get the assistance they need.

3) Year-round school would remove a major burden from parents in terms of childcare and simply wondering “what to do?” for their children during summer breaks.

4) Finally, I think that having school year-round would mirror the way most adults have to work year-round – and don’t take a three-month break in summer. It has the potential to instill a better sense of “work ethic” in students.

Do I see this happening any time soon? No. I know most students won’t initially like it but they don’t have much say in these matters. I have a feeling the most resistance might come from unions representing teachers.

…in one of his “Dilbert” cartoons, the classic – and sometimes accurate – zinger was coined that you “can’t say ‘who cares’ without ‘HR’”.

An out-of-work friend of mine this morning shared the news that he had gotten a letter today after having interviewed for a job earlier this week. The letter told him he didn’t get the job.

I think that the real character of a company or corporation can be discerned from the way it treats its unsuccessful job applicants. When I was looking for jobs in TV news, many people in the position of hiring were horrible in the way they treated job applicants. I can understand, given the number of applicants for many TV jobs, using form letters for people who didn’t even merit a phone screen or an in person interview; but there were a number of times that I took the time to interview for a job and never again heard from a hiring manager or it took me several phone calls, playing phone tag, and a considerable amount of time to get someone to actually tell me I didn’t get a position for which I applied.

Two NE Ohio companies that stand out in my personal experience are Allstate (their regional offices in Hudson) and Innis Maggiore Group (an ad agency in the Canton area). At both places, I took the time to schlep there – I took the time to interview with a human being – and in both cases the followup behavior of the company was atrocious.

At Allstate, I spent two hours testing and interviewing – and all I got in the end was a letter from the HR person saying I didn’t get a job. In the case of Innis Maggiore Group, I interviewed twice – and it took me the better part of a month to finally get a hold of the hiring manager and get him to tell me, mano a mano, that I didn’t get a print production manager position.

A couple of years ago, I interviewed for a position in another department – spent two hours with the supervisor who was doing the hiring – and in the end my rejection was given by someone from human resources and left on voicemail. I still am steamed from that. I didn’t mind at all not getting the job; what ticked me off was the cowardly way I was notified that I didn’t get it.

These three episodes – and more – raise the question: is it too much for a hiring manager who takes the time to meet with job applicants and do interviews to have the courage and guts to make it a policy to tell unsuccessful applicants, at least over the phone, and not via voicemail, that they didn’t get a position for which they interviewed? To me, it seems like common decency and courtesy.

Any thoughts? Call now; our lines are open! :)