blog.vanillacokehead.com

This question has had me thinking for a while.

I’ve noticed that many drivers take situations during which they’re expected to yield to others as opportunities to be obnoxious.

The most common situations are when drivers merge onto a freeway – more often than not, they ignore the onramp’s YIELD sign and cut in front of others or use the onramp as a passing lane.

Another frequent situation is when drivers passing parked cars don’t wait for oncoming traffic as they’re supposed to – and force to wait drivers going the opposite direction and having the right of way.

A third example is when people enter a street – there are often times when they just pull in front of other drivers and don’t seem to care if they’re slowing down traffic.

I wonder why drivers tend to not want to yield to other drivers. Is it competitive nature with drivers? Is it arrogance? An entitlement attitude? A ‘do unto others before they do unto you’ impulse?

(afterthought: maybe the “alpha personalities” out there take advantage of those who drive defensively)

Whatever it is, it’s annoying as hell. No wonder ‘road rage’ is so common.

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.

Earlier tonight, I updated Adobe Reader on my laptop to the latest version – then as usual I went into the Registry Editor applet and took out one registry key that ALWAYS gets added when this program is updated.

I disabled the “speed launch” startup task that Adobe INSISTS on adding to the registry.

I have a simple missive to Adobe, Microsoft, Apple, RealNetworks, and nearly every other software maker:

Code your primary executables so they launch quickly – and STOP SLOWING DOWN MY PC’S BOOT TIME WITH STARTUP TASKS!!!!

There are some apps that justifiably run at startup: mainly security-related programs such as antivirus, anti-spyware, and firewall apps. Most of the time, though, startup apps are about as useful as tits on a bull. Yes, I’m talking about the goodies left with installations of RealPlayer, QuickTime Player, Microsoft Office, and other software.

When my mom got a new major-brand PC a couple of years ago, of course it was loaded with crapware – and about half of said crapware had useless tasks slated to run at startup. One of the first things I did for Mom was trim almost all the startup entries from the Windows XP “StartUp” folder and “Run” keys from the registry.

I’m taking a wild-ass guess that the folks at software makers who “drink the marketing Kool-Ade” might have a role in slowing down the startup times of PC users and cluttering up the system trays of PCs the world over. I’m guessing said misguided marketing souls insist that apps put icons into the system trays of users to remind said users to use said apps.

As a result, many PC system trays resemble the the front of the uniform shirts of highly decorated NYPD officers. Said PCs probably also take forever to reach a usable state after booting up.

A week from tomorrow, hordes of fans and media will converge on Punxsutawney, PA for Phil’s furry weather forecast: his shadow’s supposed to help predict the final weeks of the winter season.

Every year I see the video of Phil’s appearance in early February, one thing comes to mind: with all those bright TV lights and photo flashes in his face, isn’t seeing his shadow almost a foregone conclusion?

It’s kind of like a doctor blowing cigarette smoke in a patient’s face then saying he doesn’t like the sound of the patient’s cough.

I know: this and four bucks might get me a latte at Starbucks.

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…

It amazes me to see how many people who give themselves the title “social media guru” or “internet marketing expert” who in reality have no clue about the basics of using services such as Twitter.

It’s become a daily ritual for me to check my Twitter followers list. And it’s become a daily frustration: most times when I check new followers, I’m lucky if I follow back one or two users – one or two who even come close to using Twitter as a true social medium. Most of my new followers are little more than cyber-blowhards.

More often than not, the new Twitter followers I encounter seem to use the service as a “mass medium” – feeding a steady diet of links, quotes, promotional pabulum, braggadocio, and/or vapid crap. At a minimum, I tend to block users whose tweets show little sign of true interaction. If they’re particularly obnoxious, I’ll hit the “block and report spam” button.

There are many people out there using Twitter who truly “get it” – who take great pains to interact with other users – and who don’t primarily use Twitter as a one-way soapbox, a virtual version of “Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations”, a megaphone, or a brag book. I’m sick of those who use it as the latter.

Twitter’s about interaction – hence the term, “social medium”. The obtuse twits who use Twitter as a mass medium are little more than shrill popinjays and cyber-nuisances. Such twits need to grab the clue phone – lines two, three, and four – STAT!

…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.”

My friend Chuck Collins mentioned this morning that 12 years ago today, Princess Diana died. Many say paparazzi photographers played a role in her death – it’s alleged that their chasing of the vehicle in which she was a passenger caused the car crash that took her life.

In July of 1996, about 14 months before Princess Di’s death, I left the TV news business; I had been a news photographer for seven years. I decided the stress was too much – a major contributor to this stress was having to regularly deal with police, fire, and other public safety officers who (IMO) often took it upon themselves to use police and fire lines as ways to restrict media coverage of crime scenes and other emergency incidents.

In the early 90s when I lived in Mississippi, media got along with “the authorities” and the cooperation level was pretty good. In Rochester NY – it was the opposite. It seemed like a running game between public safety officers and members of the news media at incident scenes. Many of “the authorities” in the Rochester area had chips on their shoulders and seemed eager to mess with members of the media. What I miss least about being a news photographer was the stress of being expected to get a story, to get video – and being impeded in doing my job by cops, firefighters, and other public safety officers.

In the mid-90s when I worked in Rochester, I could definitely see the tide turning for the worse for members of the news media. More public safety officers felt comfortable as the decade progressed to “play censor” with the news media. You could also see people getting more unhappy with what they felt was progressively invasive news coverage.

For many, the death of Princess Diana was a “Popeye moment” (“that’s all I can stands; I can’t stands no more!!!”) regarding the conduct of members of the news media. I think the alleged role of the paparazzi in her death pissed off quite a few people – and this anger turned the tide, perhaps permanently, against the media. Many were eager to lump legitimate media organizations in with the paparazzi – many people painted the entire news media unfairly with this broad brush.

This backlash against the news media can still be felt today: fewer cameras in courtrooms, people verbally (and in some cases physically) confronting members of the news media, governmental and other public bodies feeling more emboldened to shield information from the news media, and more news crews ordered by public safety officials to stay further away from crime scenes and other emergency incidents.

While I can understand the public anger against the media in general – I also am saddened that the proverbial “few bad apples” have made it rough on others who work in the media. Most people in the media show empathy and compassion and don’t shove mikes in grieving relatives’ faces and ask, “how do you feel?”. The paparazzi have made it difficult for legitimate journalists to do their jobs.

August 31, 1997 was a red letter day in the history of the information media – a rather ignominious day. I don’t think the media has – or ever will – fully recover.