Dean Rotbart's News & Comment
Dean Rotbart's Blog
Bank of America Takes My Tax Dollars Plus $400
I really wish there was something I could do beyond posting here and on other sites to punish Bank of America for its rude, ineffective, unsympathetic, outrageous customer disservice.
What a lousy bank and a lousy bunch of phone agents and phone supervisors. I plan to close all my accounts as soon as logistics permit and take them to a smaller bank.
Today's Bank of America disaster is that I tried to withdraw $400.00 in cash from a Bank of America ATM. Good luck.
The ATM dutifully deducted the funds from my account, but didn't deliver one cent to me. In fact, AFTER it failed to give me my money, the screen posted a, "Sorry, temporarily out of service" sign and stopped working altogether.
Okay, machines will fail.
So I call customer service, expecting an apology and a rapid refund. Fat chance. The bank isn't parting with any of our $25 billion plus in TARP funds just to issue a refund of my stolen $400.
No, after 45 minutes, two customer service agents and a supervisor -- not a one of whom said, "I'm sorry" for the inconvenience, still no refund and no promise of any funds back for weeks.
The problem is that while I'm a Bank of America customer and was at a Bank of America machine, I tried to withdraw cash using a card from a different bank. It is Bank of America's position that while the machine is theirs, my problem isn't. They suggest I file a claim with my other bank and await research and, possibly, a refund.
Reasoning with Bank of America was impossible. "This is your machine," I repeatedly reminded them. "I am your customer." The three reps I spoke with couldn't have been less concerned if I had told them I lost a paper clip in one of their branches.
Please, please pass this true story along and/or link to it. When it comes to our tax dollars, Bank of America is ready and able. When it comes to taxpayers and customers, it is permanently out of service.
What a lousy bank and a lousy bunch of phone agents and phone supervisors. I plan to close all my accounts as soon as logistics permit and take them to a smaller bank.
Today's Bank of America disaster is that I tried to withdraw $400.00 in cash from a Bank of America ATM. Good luck.
The ATM dutifully deducted the funds from my account, but didn't deliver one cent to me. In fact, AFTER it failed to give me my money, the screen posted a, "Sorry, temporarily out of service" sign and stopped working altogether.
Okay, machines will fail.
So I call customer service, expecting an apology and a rapid refund. Fat chance. The bank isn't parting with any of our $25 billion plus in TARP funds just to issue a refund of my stolen $400.
No, after 45 minutes, two customer service agents and a supervisor -- not a one of whom said, "I'm sorry" for the inconvenience, still no refund and no promise of any funds back for weeks.
The problem is that while I'm a Bank of America customer and was at a Bank of America machine, I tried to withdraw cash using a card from a different bank. It is Bank of America's position that while the machine is theirs, my problem isn't. They suggest I file a claim with my other bank and await research and, possibly, a refund.
Reasoning with Bank of America was impossible. "This is your machine," I repeatedly reminded them. "I am your customer." The three reps I spoke with couldn't have been less concerned if I had told them I lost a paper clip in one of their branches.
Please, please pass this true story along and/or link to it. When it comes to our tax dollars, Bank of America is ready and able. When it comes to taxpayers and customers, it is permanently out of service.
90-Minute Webinar to Explore Media Relations Lessons from Peanut Butter Recall
Which companies handled media relations well during the ongoing peanut butter recall and which ones erred will be a core focus of a 90-minute webinar to be hosted late this month by an award-winning investigative journalist.
In addition, the webinar, titled “Media Relations Lessons from the 2009 Peanut Butter Recall,” will examine which news organizations and which specific journalists did the best – and worst – job keeping consumers, businesses and investors informed. Registration for this seminar is only $69.95 and includes exclusive briefing materials.
The webinar will be conducted on Friday, February 27th at 2 p.m. EST and is being presented by health.newsbios.com, a journalism service that provides in-depth dossiers on the world’s most influential health and medical journalists. health.newsbios.com is an affiliate of NewsBios.com.
“Every company that could face a future recall, whether in the food industry or not, needs to incorporate the lessons of this massive recall into their emergency communications plans,” says Dean Rotbart, who won multiple prizes for his reporting both while he was a reporter and columnist at The Wall Street Journal and in the years since. Rotbart has reviewed the reporting and reactions of dozens of key journalists and companies that have been in the spotlight as a result of the recent salmonella outbreak linked to peanut products.
Some of the companies that Rotbart will discuss are household brands, including Kellogg, Hershey, Nestlé, Clif Bar and J.M. Smucker. Others distributed affected peanut products, including Costco, Kroger, Rite Aid and General Nutrition Centers. Rotbart will also look at the communications effectiveness of the FDA, CDC, American Peanut Council, and Trust for America’s Health, among others.
Rotbart will examine how various reporters and news organizations handled their recall coverage, including specifically: Gardiner Harris, The New York Times; Julie Jargon and Jane Zhang, The Wall Street Journal; Maggie Fox, Reuters; Elizabeth Cohen, CNN; Catherine Larkin, Bloomberg News; Mike Huckman, CNBC, Lyndsey Layton, The Washington Post and others.
None of the companies, journalists or other organizations listed are affiliated with this webinar, which promises an “independent, blunt review” of their performance.
The 90-minute session will include an opportunity to ask questions to Rotbart, who has trained senior-level corporate media strategists for more than two decades. Among the materials each registrant receives will be exclusive biographical profiles of a dozen influential journalists.
Those wishing to register must email their names, phone numbers, and company affiliations to: webinar@health.newsbios.com. A webinar service representative will then reply to answer any questions and confirm reservations. Space for the conference is capacity constrained, so health.newsbios.com urges those wishing to participate to register early.
In addition, the webinar, titled “Media Relations Lessons from the 2009 Peanut Butter Recall,” will examine which news organizations and which specific journalists did the best – and worst – job keeping consumers, businesses and investors informed. Registration for this seminar is only $69.95 and includes exclusive briefing materials.
The webinar will be conducted on Friday, February 27th at 2 p.m. EST and is being presented by health.newsbios.com, a journalism service that provides in-depth dossiers on the world’s most influential health and medical journalists. health.newsbios.com is an affiliate of NewsBios.com.
“Every company that could face a future recall, whether in the food industry or not, needs to incorporate the lessons of this massive recall into their emergency communications plans,” says Dean Rotbart, who won multiple prizes for his reporting both while he was a reporter and columnist at The Wall Street Journal and in the years since. Rotbart has reviewed the reporting and reactions of dozens of key journalists and companies that have been in the spotlight as a result of the recent salmonella outbreak linked to peanut products.
Some of the companies that Rotbart will discuss are household brands, including Kellogg, Hershey, Nestlé, Clif Bar and J.M. Smucker. Others distributed affected peanut products, including Costco, Kroger, Rite Aid and General Nutrition Centers. Rotbart will also look at the communications effectiveness of the FDA, CDC, American Peanut Council, and Trust for America’s Health, among others.
Rotbart will examine how various reporters and news organizations handled their recall coverage, including specifically: Gardiner Harris, The New York Times; Julie Jargon and Jane Zhang, The Wall Street Journal; Maggie Fox, Reuters; Elizabeth Cohen, CNN; Catherine Larkin, Bloomberg News; Mike Huckman, CNBC, Lyndsey Layton, The Washington Post and others.
None of the companies, journalists or other organizations listed are affiliated with this webinar, which promises an “independent, blunt review” of their performance.
The 90-minute session will include an opportunity to ask questions to Rotbart, who has trained senior-level corporate media strategists for more than two decades. Among the materials each registrant receives will be exclusive biographical profiles of a dozen influential journalists.
Those wishing to register must email their names, phone numbers, and company affiliations to: webinar@health.newsbios.com. A webinar service representative will then reply to answer any questions and confirm reservations. Space for the conference is capacity constrained, so health.newsbios.com urges those wishing to participate to register early.
The Yet-To-Be Told Story of Blue Nile v. Yehuda Diamonds
I ask because of the David v. Goliath epic playing out in courtrooms in Washington State and New York. In this modern version, comparatively tiny Yehuda Diamond, which specializes in so-called clarity-enhanced gems, is defending one lawsuit and prosecuting another against the 800-pound Goliath of online jewelers, Blue Nile.
In one respect, this is an age-old story of two squabbling competitors who are thrusting and volleying accusations and counter-charges that would best be resolved in the marketplace, not the courtroom.
Yet, if anyone bothers to look beyond the obvious, as I have, what they will find at stake here is the right of a business, in this case Yehuda Diamond, to freely compare its products and its prices to that of a competitor.
Additionally, Yehuda Diamond is fighting to force Blue Nile to make full disclosure to Blue Nile customers when its gemstones have been filled to improve their appearance. Such treatments are a common industry practice, but nonetheless one that needs to be noted before a sale.
Whereas Yehuda Diamonds has always been upfront and forthright about its proprietary clarity-enhancement process, such disclosures on Blue Niles’ web site have been off again, on again, at least in part in response to Yehuda Diamonds’ legal parrying.
I profess little objectivity in this matter, as my loyalties lie squarely with David ….er, I mean Yehuda Diamond, and I currently am advising one of its owners, Dror Yehuda, on how best to tell the world his side of the Blue Nile hostilities.
Dror and his family have been in the diamond business for three generations. They are good stock. Honorable. And hard-working.
Dror’s dad, Zvi, a brilliant inventor, perfected a method of injecting a microscopic amount of material into a natural diamond such that light is not reflected off so-called feathers, as it otherwise would be. The result: two lovely natural diamonds, one without such feathers and one whose feathers have been treated by Yehuda Diamond so effectively that only a trained gemologist can tell.
The chief difference? Yehuda Diamond's stones sell for about 30% less than the feather-free diamonds offered by Blue Nile.
Keep in mind we’re not talking about comparing natural diamonds to cubic zirconia. We’re talking apples to apples comparisons of natural diamonds to natural diamonds. Only the treated diamonds sold by Yehuda Diamond sell for a lot less to the public than the equivalent weight and color gems offered by Blue Nile. With Yehuda Diamond, consumers get more bling for the buck.
And lest you think that somehow ‘treated’ gems are unusual, think again. For some gems, such as emeralds, treating them with wax, oil or resin fillers is really the norm – even at Blue Nile.
Still, Blue Nile seems to detest the fact that Yehuda Diamond, on the popular Yehuda Diamond web site, compares its prices to those of comparable diamonds offered at Blue Nile. In December 2007, Blue Nile filed a federal lawsuit in Seattle, its hometown, seeking to silence such Yehuda Diamond comparisons.
<< MORE >>
An Ode to Entrepreneurship
I phoned a business-to-business Internet service recently aiming to become a fresh client. In these difficult economic times I thought that my purchases, certain to be several thousand dollars over the next couple months, would be graciously welcomed.
They were not.
As I endeavored to explain my needs to the representative on the other end of the phone, he consistently cut me off and admonished me for interrupting him. I asked to speak to the owner and he told me he is the owner, just before hanging up on me and my prospective business.
I write this not as a tale of poor customer service, but rather as an ode to entrepreneurship in the midst of our current economic upheaval. A bit of further investigation confirmed that I indeed had been speaking to the independent-minded founder and owner.
Shrugging off clients who annoy you is one of the many perks of being an entrepreneur, a status I’ve enjoyed now for more than two decades.
One of the first lessons I learned is that my business cycles and national economic cycles have minimal correlation. At times, my business has suffered mightily even as the stock market set new records highs. Now that the market has fallen sharply, I find my business fairing better than most publicly held concerns.
I’ve read with great interest of the sad tales of those who staked their retirement nest eggs in stocks or mutual funds only to be jolted into the realization that passive investments are not necessarily safe investments.
Most people perceive, wrongly I might add, that owning one's own business is risky. They read about the failure rate of entrepreneurs and they reckon they’ll place their bets with the name brand fund managers on Wall Street. Such as Bernie Madoff.
Statistics can be instructive. But they mean little to me day-to-day. My business has risen or fallen based upon mostly upon my levels of hard work, creativity, hustle, endurance, flexibility and luck. The economy plays only a small factor.
When I offer advise to my two teenage children about how to secure their lifelong financial well being, I always remind them that when you own your own business its impossible to ever be laid off. You can call it quits, but no one will ever downsize your job if you refuse to give up.
Over the years, if I’m honest about it, I’ve told a select few existing or prospective customers where to put their attitude. Those who build their own businesses and work for themselves come to know that financial success is an important benefit, but hardly the only one.
Sometimes it feels plain good to act haughtily, just because.
They were not.
As I endeavored to explain my needs to the representative on the other end of the phone, he consistently cut me off and admonished me for interrupting him. I asked to speak to the owner and he told me he is the owner, just before hanging up on me and my prospective business.
I write this not as a tale of poor customer service, but rather as an ode to entrepreneurship in the midst of our current economic upheaval. A bit of further investigation confirmed that I indeed had been speaking to the independent-minded founder and owner.
Shrugging off clients who annoy you is one of the many perks of being an entrepreneur, a status I’ve enjoyed now for more than two decades.
One of the first lessons I learned is that my business cycles and national economic cycles have minimal correlation. At times, my business has suffered mightily even as the stock market set new records highs. Now that the market has fallen sharply, I find my business fairing better than most publicly held concerns.
I’ve read with great interest of the sad tales of those who staked their retirement nest eggs in stocks or mutual funds only to be jolted into the realization that passive investments are not necessarily safe investments.
Most people perceive, wrongly I might add, that owning one's own business is risky. They read about the failure rate of entrepreneurs and they reckon they’ll place their bets with the name brand fund managers on Wall Street. Such as Bernie Madoff.
Statistics can be instructive. But they mean little to me day-to-day. My business has risen or fallen based upon mostly upon my levels of hard work, creativity, hustle, endurance, flexibility and luck. The economy plays only a small factor.
When I offer advise to my two teenage children about how to secure their lifelong financial well being, I always remind them that when you own your own business its impossible to ever be laid off. You can call it quits, but no one will ever downsize your job if you refuse to give up.
Over the years, if I’m honest about it, I’ve told a select few existing or prospective customers where to put their attitude. Those who build their own businesses and work for themselves come to know that financial success is an important benefit, but hardly the only one.
Sometimes it feels plain good to act haughtily, just because.
Gilbert and Dean Debate the Virtues of Charity and 'Genetic' Jews
I love intelligent debate, especially concerning issues over which I'm passionate. Since I began actively writing for the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles last month, I have enjoyed a series of debates with Gilbert H. Skopp, who I know only as a member of the loyal opposition.
Right now Gilbert and I are exchanging thoughts on the topic of charity, and specifically my belief that Eli & Edythe Broad should redirect their funding of charitable causes away from the art world and toward worthy Jewish non-profits. You can read our back and forth at the Jewish Journal web site, or view part of the conversation below.
GILBERT: I apologize for Mr & Mrs Broad for not donating to your favorite charity.
DEAN: Apology accepted. If you really want to make amends, write a check, even for $18.00, and mail it to one of Los Angeles’ fine Jewish Day Schools. Send me a copy of the check and I’ll post it on The Memo to show you are after all a truly good guy. Come on, it’s only 18 bucks and it will put you in good with the man upstairs. Deal?
GILBERT: I think that I’m a charitable man, more generous than some, not as generous perhaps as others. Your suggestion to post my check on your blog would lessen the level of my gift. You cited the Rambam in your response to J. Did the Rambam not say that the second highest level of Tzedakah is to give anonymously? The recipient of the donation should not know from where it came and the charity should remain unknown. However, rest assured there is a Jewish Day School that is receiving some support from me.
DEAN: I believe you really do support an area Jewish Day School and I publicly thank you for it! You are a good man after all
.
<< MORE >>
Right now Gilbert and I are exchanging thoughts on the topic of charity, and specifically my belief that Eli & Edythe Broad should redirect their funding of charitable causes away from the art world and toward worthy Jewish non-profits. You can read our back and forth at the Jewish Journal web site, or view part of the conversation below.
GILBERT: I apologize for Mr & Mrs Broad for not donating to your favorite charity.
DEAN: Apology accepted. If you really want to make amends, write a check, even for $18.00, and mail it to one of Los Angeles’ fine Jewish Day Schools. Send me a copy of the check and I’ll post it on The Memo to show you are after all a truly good guy. Come on, it’s only 18 bucks and it will put you in good with the man upstairs. Deal?
GILBERT: I think that I’m a charitable man, more generous than some, not as generous perhaps as others. Your suggestion to post my check on your blog would lessen the level of my gift. You cited the Rambam in your response to J. Did the Rambam not say that the second highest level of Tzedakah is to give anonymously? The recipient of the donation should not know from where it came and the charity should remain unknown. However, rest assured there is a Jewish Day School that is receiving some support from me.
DEAN: I believe you really do support an area Jewish Day School and I publicly thank you for it! You are a good man after all
.
I believe there are some concepts in the world that are absolute and charity is one of them. There is a huge, huge difference between what is legal, what is constitutional and what is right.
Eli and Edythe Broad have not yet met a building they don’t want to see their names on. Do they have the right? Of course. Is it right? Obviously, I think not.
I believe great art museums enrich us all, Jew, non-Jew, atheist, communist, you name it. I am a member of LACMA and my family and I regularly visit area art museums.
But if my enjoyment of art is at the expense of securing the long-term viability of the Jewish people, then I can live without it. I simply can’t equate the two as being morally equivalent.
The Broads have done plenty for the art world. Enough! Time for them to step up and bolster the many worthy Jewish causes.
Some may question whether or not God notes the difference in charitable giving. All I can say is that the God described in the Torah most certainly does—if that matters to the Broads or any other ‘genetic’ Jews.
What, you may ask is a ‘genetic’ Jew? A human whose DNA says s/he is Jewish, but whose behaviors would argue otherwise.
<< MORE >>
The Two Faces of Bernard Madoff – Good and Evil
The article below was first published this afternoon on the web site of the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles. But so many people have been trying to read that site, it keeps crashing. For anyone who can't access there, I'm re-posting it.
December 16, 2008
Madoff’s ‘unspeakable evil’ shocks those who thought they knew him well
By Dean Rotbart
In April 2004, Bernard L. Madoff and his wife, Ruth, devised a plan to save Jewish lives.
In the effort to bolster Gift of Life, a Florida-based nonprofit that maintains a unique Jewish bone marrow registry, the Madoffs funded and helped roll out an ongoing program to enlist large numbers of fresh, young donors whose marrow will be available for decades to come to provide life-saving transplants.
The same Bernie Madoff this month decimated untold Jewish lives and institutions.
The paradox -- one man possessed of bountiful quantities of good and evil -- is confounding to many who knew Madoff and only now are discovering his dark side.
"Like everybody else who trusted and invested with Bernie Madoff, he betrayed my trust," said Stanley Chais, a long-time Beverly Hills philanthropist who not only personally invested with Madoff, but also facilitated others who wished to do likewise. The Chais Family Foundation, which for more than two decades provided substantial funding to global Jewish causes, ceased operations on Sunday after Madoff-related losses left it penniless.
<< MORE >>
December 16, 2008
Madoff’s ‘unspeakable evil’ shocks those who thought they knew him well
By Dean Rotbart
In April 2004, Bernard L. Madoff and his wife, Ruth, devised a plan to save Jewish lives.
In the effort to bolster Gift of Life, a Florida-based nonprofit that maintains a unique Jewish bone marrow registry, the Madoffs funded and helped roll out an ongoing program to enlist large numbers of fresh, young donors whose marrow will be available for decades to come to provide life-saving transplants.
The same Bernie Madoff this month decimated untold Jewish lives and institutions.
The paradox -- one man possessed of bountiful quantities of good and evil -- is confounding to many who knew Madoff and only now are discovering his dark side.
"Like everybody else who trusted and invested with Bernie Madoff, he betrayed my trust," said Stanley Chais, a long-time Beverly Hills philanthropist who not only personally invested with Madoff, but also facilitated others who wished to do likewise. The Chais Family Foundation, which for more than two decades provided substantial funding to global Jewish causes, ceased operations on Sunday after Madoff-related losses left it penniless.
<< MORE >>
Think of All the Good Eli & Edythe Broad Could Be Doing, But Aren't
Eli and Edythe Broad are revered among many in the Los Angeles Arts community, as well they should be given all the funds they've donated to support worthy art-related causes.Their own private collection of contemporary art, which they generously lend out to museums around the world, is one of the best anywhere. The Broads spend tens, perhaps hundreds, of millions of dollars a year in pursuit of this passion.
Too bad, too!
It boggles the mind to contemplate all the good they could do the Jewish community -- their community -- if they'd leave it to others from this point forward to support the arts and instead concentrate their donations on Jewish Day Schools, Jewish charities and support of Israel.
I have written a memo to Eli and Edythe on my blog at the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles that spells out my full reasoning. I hope you'll click over to it. It's worth reading and emailing to friends and family who agree.
DEAN
<< MORE >>
MAILBOX: Haaretz Columnist Thinks Right-Wing Israelis Are Self-Hating Jews
I thoroughly resent the statement by Bradley Bursten ( bbursten@haaretz.co.il ) in his editorial, below, that certain right-wing Israelis are self-hating Jews. I wrote to him, saying just that and more.
I request that anyone who agrees with me will also contact him.
M.
========
An article from Haaretz.
The URL is http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1044645.html
אתר הארץ
www.haaretz.co.il
Haaretz English
www.haaretz.com
I request that anyone who agrees with me will also contact him.
M.
========
An article from Haaretz.
The URL is http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1044645.html
אתר הארץ
www.haaretz.co.il
Haaretz English
www.haaretz.com
Republicans Fumbled Their Right To Govern, Meanwhile Obama Recognized the 'Tide of Discontent'
Dear Dean,
When you last wrote to me your salutation was "Dear Gilbert". Now it's "Dear Mr Skopp". I'm sorry if we somehow lost a little intimacy with each other. I hope I have been civil to you in my correspondence and that I may continue to address you as Dean.
I agree whole heartily with your observation that the future will confirm the past:
"...If I and other McCain voters are the fools so many family members believe, then time and President Obama will prove us wrong and we will be deserving of a badge of shame."...Rotbart
However, I do not believe that you are a fool for supporting McCain if your reasons are compelling and I do not think that you are deserving of a "badge of shame" should you be wrong in your predictions.
My concern is that we in the USA protect the freedoms given to us by our Constitution, that we remain militarily strong and moral in our foreign policies. I believe in diplomacy before war and I'm not naive to believe that Hitler should or could have been appeased. I do not believe that Ahmadinjhad is a Hitler. I do not even believe that he has significant power in Iran. I think he is a puppet of the Imams and it's the Imams that we should be concerned about. And yes, I believe Iran is trying to build an Atomic weapon and I think that the present government should not be allowed to do that. I think the western powers should take the lead to show Iran that it would not be in their interests to develop an Atomic weapon. Of course it's easier said then done, but better than the "Bring it on" stupidity of our outgoing president and his desire to take on the world alone.
I believe a strong USA is important for Israel, but in the end, Israel must depend on itself.
After 8 years of prosperity under President Clinton, we have, in the following 8 years, become bogged down in two wars; we are in a recession brought about by the policies of our lying, incompetent, Republican Administration and supported by a Republican-Controlled Congress; our Constitution has been weakened by the loss of Habeus Corpus, unchecked government spying and torture. For these reason alone the Republicans should not be returned to power. However, John McCain supported all of these Bush Policies, and ran one of the worst campaigns ever, showing that he is largely now inept.
So, Obama was smart enough to recognize the rising tide of discontent in the USA and used that to champion change and ride that wave to victory. If you recall McCain, in 2000, rode a similar "wave" with his "Straight Talk Express", but in South Carolina Bush's campaign consultants used Robo- Calls to imply that McCain had a natural born black child (actually the child was adopted). Bush won, McCain lost. In 2008 McCain hired the same Bush Campaign Consultants to run his campaign and with that, his desire to win overcame his integrity and the campaign showed it. To me, McCain could no longer be trusted.
Obama, as it turned out, impressed me with his oratory, his ability to answer questions with grammatically correct sentences which made sense to me. He is probably one of the brightest men to be elected President and his selections to date in forming his cabinet have been widely applauded by almost all.
So we shall see how it turns out and I'm sure that we are both wishing him success!
Gilbert
(See next post from Gilbert H. Skopp and comments there)
When you last wrote to me your salutation was "Dear Gilbert". Now it's "Dear Mr Skopp". I'm sorry if we somehow lost a little intimacy with each other. I hope I have been civil to you in my correspondence and that I may continue to address you as Dean.
I agree whole heartily with your observation that the future will confirm the past:
"...If I and other McCain voters are the fools so many family members believe, then time and President Obama will prove us wrong and we will be deserving of a badge of shame."...Rotbart
However, I do not believe that you are a fool for supporting McCain if your reasons are compelling and I do not think that you are deserving of a "badge of shame" should you be wrong in your predictions.
After 8 years of prosperity under President Clinton, we have, in the following 8 years, become bogged down in two wars; we are in a recession brought about by the policies of our lying, incompetent, Republican Administration and supported by a Republican-Controlled Congress; our Constitution has been weakened by the loss of Habeus Corpus, unchecked government spying and torture. For these reason alone the Republicans should not be returned to power. However, John McCain supported all of these Bush Policies, and ran one of the worst campaigns ever, showing that he is largely now inept.
My concern is that we in the USA protect the freedoms given to us by our Constitution, that we remain militarily strong and moral in our foreign policies. I believe in diplomacy before war and I'm not naive to believe that Hitler should or could have been appeased. I do not believe that Ahmadinjhad is a Hitler. I do not even believe that he has significant power in Iran. I think he is a puppet of the Imams and it's the Imams that we should be concerned about. And yes, I believe Iran is trying to build an Atomic weapon and I think that the present government should not be allowed to do that. I think the western powers should take the lead to show Iran that it would not be in their interests to develop an Atomic weapon. Of course it's easier said then done, but better than the "Bring it on" stupidity of our outgoing president and his desire to take on the world alone.
I believe a strong USA is important for Israel, but in the end, Israel must depend on itself.
After 8 years of prosperity under President Clinton, we have, in the following 8 years, become bogged down in two wars; we are in a recession brought about by the policies of our lying, incompetent, Republican Administration and supported by a Republican-Controlled Congress; our Constitution has been weakened by the loss of Habeus Corpus, unchecked government spying and torture. For these reason alone the Republicans should not be returned to power. However, John McCain supported all of these Bush Policies, and ran one of the worst campaigns ever, showing that he is largely now inept.
So, Obama was smart enough to recognize the rising tide of discontent in the USA and used that to champion change and ride that wave to victory. If you recall McCain, in 2000, rode a similar "wave" with his "Straight Talk Express", but in South Carolina Bush's campaign consultants used Robo- Calls to imply that McCain had a natural born black child (actually the child was adopted). Bush won, McCain lost. In 2008 McCain hired the same Bush Campaign Consultants to run his campaign and with that, his desire to win overcame his integrity and the campaign showed it. To me, McCain could no longer be trusted.
Obama, as it turned out, impressed me with his oratory, his ability to answer questions with grammatically correct sentences which made sense to me. He is probably one of the brightest men to be elected President and his selections to date in forming his cabinet have been widely applauded by almost all.
So we shall see how it turns out and I'm sure that we are both wishing him success!
Gilbert
(See next post from Gilbert H. Skopp and comments there)
Critics Are Welcome: 22% of Jewish Voters Who Voted McCain Also Eschewed Judaic Values
Dear Dean,
After reading your column in the Jewish Journal, I felt it necessary to respond. I wrote a letter to the editor and sent a copy to you. The Jewish Journal did not print my letter (it was relegated to their website) and neither did you in citing examples of responses that you received from your article. I was probably being too "cutesy", but this is the letter that I wrote:
Gilbert H. Skopp
Calabasas
Also relegated to the Jewish Journal's Website was the following letter which more clearly describes my feelings:
Marc Rogers
Sherman Oaks
I wonder if you will print our letters in your newsletter.
I am interested in your views and would like, on occasion, to respond to you. Therefore I will not unsubscribe from your newsletter.
Gilbert H. Skopp
After reading your column in the Jewish Journal, I felt it necessary to respond. I wrote a letter to the editor and sent a copy to you. The Jewish Journal did not print my letter (it was relegated to their website) and neither did you in citing examples of responses that you received from your article. I was probably being too "cutesy", but this is the letter that I wrote:
I just read Dean Rotbart's brilliant tongue-in-cheek apology for the Jewish vote for Barack Obama. The tip-off, of course, was his naming of Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Mike Gallagher as deserving of an apology.
These talking heads -- with Rush Limbaugh -- have committed one of the worst of Jewish sins, i.e., malicious gossip. Rotbart even repeats some of them in his positive take on guilt by association and fear-mongering.
Unfortunately, as Rotbart points out, there are about 22 percent of Jewish voters who will look upon his opinion piece as being serious, which supports President Lincoln's observation that you can fool some of the people all of the time.
Gilbert H. Skopp
Calabasas
Also relegated to the Jewish Journal's Website was the following letter which more clearly describes my feelings:
I apologize for the 22 percent of Jewish voters who voted Republican and gave demagogic credence to the poisonous venom that spews like raw sewage from the convoluted minds and mouths of conservative television and radio hosts.
I apologize for the 22 percent of Jewish voters who voted Republican and embraced hatred, bigotry and fear, while eschewing the traditional Judaic values of love, acceptance and hope.
I apologize for the 22 percent of Jewish voters who voted Republican and want the continuation of the war in Iraq, a war that has left Israel with more enemies and fewer choices and options to chose from.
I apologize for the 22 percent of Jewish voters who voted Republican and abandoned the majority of non-Jews who elected a president that carefully addresses the Israeli-Palestinian imbroglio and seeks to end the Wild West shootout that has become the Republican substitute for thoughtful diplomacy.
And finally, I apologize for Rotbart and his ideological cousins at the RJC, who believe that in Orwellian doublespeak, a fact is an epithet and a falsehood is the truth.
Marc Rogers
Sherman Oaks
I wonder if you will print our letters in your newsletter.
I am interested in your views and would like, on occasion, to respond to you. Therefore I will not unsubscribe from your newsletter.
Gilbert H. Skopp
MAILBOX: Let's All Pitch In To Buy Sharp Blades For Our Executioners
Dear Dean:
Well, well, well. Bunch of enlightened souls we Jews are, with our electoral preferences, aren't we now?
"Martin Indyk (Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution), along with Council of Foreign Relations President Richard Hass, recently provided the foreword and first chapter to Restoring the Balance: A Middle East Strategy for the Next President. Indyk was [a] strong and visible supporter of Barack Obama's during the campaign who assured Jewish audiences of Barack Obama's strong support for Israel."
Refreshing, isn't it? Isn't our peculiar brand of elitist self-loathing just grand? Aren't we the savvy ones, making common cause with our enemies out of ignorance? Oh yeah, these folks we have supported for so long out of kindness, or pity, or whatever emotion we've intellectually talked ourselves into with our twisted internal dialog can really turn tail, can't they? Boy, are we one enlightened bunch or what? We sure know how to vote those fine Democrats in, we're always thinking about how truthful they are, what selfless public servants they are, and how they've tirelessly supported Israel.
But wait, Obama appointed Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff, that proves he's not anti-Semitic. Wow, the brilliance of this insight just leaves us conservatives scratching the heads surrounding our shriveled little neanderthal brains in confusion, doesn't it? Where did we go wrong?
Congratulations, my fellow Jews, nice job on that voting thingy. What's next, shall we pool our resources and see if we can get a wholesale deal on fine German cutlery to donate to the poor suffering Muslims in Palestine, so when they cut our throats, they'll have nice sharp blades and at least it will be quick?
A.P.
December 7, 2008 12:38:49 PM PST
<< MORE >>
Well, well, well. Bunch of enlightened souls we Jews are, with our electoral preferences, aren't we now?
"Martin Indyk (Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution), along with Council of Foreign Relations President Richard Hass, recently provided the foreword and first chapter to Restoring the Balance: A Middle East Strategy for the Next President. Indyk was [a] strong and visible supporter of Barack Obama's during the campaign who assured Jewish audiences of Barack Obama's strong support for Israel."
Refreshing, isn't it? Isn't our peculiar brand of elitist self-loathing just grand? Aren't we the savvy ones, making common cause with our enemies out of ignorance? Oh yeah, these folks we have supported for so long out of kindness, or pity, or whatever emotion we've intellectually talked ourselves into with our twisted internal dialog can really turn tail, can't they? Boy, are we one enlightened bunch or what? We sure know how to vote those fine Democrats in, we're always thinking about how truthful they are, what selfless public servants they are, and how they've tirelessly supported Israel.
But wait, Obama appointed Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff, that proves he's not anti-Semitic. Wow, the brilliance of this insight just leaves us conservatives scratching the heads surrounding our shriveled little neanderthal brains in confusion, doesn't it? Where did we go wrong?
Congratulations, my fellow Jews, nice job on that voting thingy. What's next, shall we pool our resources and see if we can get a wholesale deal on fine German cutlery to donate to the poor suffering Muslims in Palestine, so when they cut our throats, they'll have nice sharp blades and at least it will be quick?
A.P.
December 7, 2008 12:38:49 PM PST
<< MORE >>
7 Reasons This Conservative Is Actually Glad Obama Got Elected
7) When we pull out of Iraq, it will save the US a ton of money.
But, the immediate results will be bad for Obama. Most of the
military over there now are from the National Guard, not regular
military. When these people come home, they will try to go back
into the labor force, which is already laying off people left and
right. Unemployment will skyrocket - and Obama will get the blame.
If the economy continues to crumble, as it will, Obama and the
Democrats will get the blame for it. They all got elected to get us
out of this mess, but the mess is way beyond their control. In
today's times (or any time, for that matter) Obama can't possibly
live up to his soaring rhetoric, which will lead to mass
disappointment. The Messiah is supposed to perform miracles, after
all. I predict a huge Republican gain in the next election in two
years just as there was after Clinton's first two years. Clinton
ruined the Democratic party for a generation - I suspect Obama will
do the same.
<< MORE >>
But, the immediate results will be bad for Obama. Most of the
military over there now are from the National Guard, not regular
military. When these people come home, they will try to go back
into the labor force, which is already laying off people left and
right. Unemployment will skyrocket - and Obama will get the blame.
If the economy continues to crumble, as it will, Obama and the
Democrats will get the blame for it. They all got elected to get us
out of this mess, but the mess is way beyond their control. In
today's times (or any time, for that matter) Obama can't possibly
live up to his soaring rhetoric, which will lead to mass
disappointment. The Messiah is supposed to perform miracles, after
all. I predict a huge Republican gain in the next election in two
years just as there was after Clinton's first two years. Clinton
ruined the Democratic party for a generation - I suspect Obama will
do the same.
<< MORE >>
Pathetic Paul Wrote Back - But Is Afraid To Have His Comments Printed
In the blog post just beneath this one, I challenge Pathetic Paul S. Kessler to write back and respond to my questions. Big brave Paul, who labels me a "self-hating, kool-aid drinking" Jew, huffs and puffs and tells me that he doesn't want his pitiful response posted.
Frankly, I think Paul is a wuss. Hiding behind his mommy's skirt, he is big and threatening. But having the courage to spew publicly what he vomits at me in private is just too harrowing for sad sack Paul.
I could publish his response despite his warning not to. I never agreed not to publish what he writes me, in fact, if you read my response to him, I specifically promised him that I would publish his unedited response.
So what does Paul do. He writes me and tells me I have no right to publish his remarks. Duh?
Oh yes, Pathetic Paul also tells me if I email him again he'll consider it spam. Ooh. Ooh. He is so scary.
I guess Paul doesn't know the actual definition of spam. Here is what I emailed him back:
Frankly, I think Paul is a wuss. Hiding behind his mommy's skirt, he is big and threatening. But having the courage to spew publicly what he vomits at me in private is just too harrowing for sad sack Paul.
I could publish his response despite his warning not to. I never agreed not to publish what he writes me, in fact, if you read my response to him, I specifically promised him that I would publish his unedited response.
So what does Paul do. He writes me and tells me I have no right to publish his remarks. Duh?
Oh yes, Pathetic Paul also tells me if I email him again he'll consider it spam. Ooh. Ooh. He is so scary.
I guess Paul doesn't know the actual definition of spam. Here is what I emailed him back:
I think the definition of spam involves me sending out mass emails to persons I don't know. Obviously, we now know each other. I think the law would say if you don't want email from me, block it or don't open it.<< MORE >>
When I studied law, I seem to recall that if you send me mail and ask me to abide by any "restrictions," I'm under no obligation to do so unless I previously agreed to some such restriction, which I most certainly never did.
I'm a journalist and a blogger. You knew that when you emailed me. If you didn't want me to publish what you write to me, you probably shouldn't have sent it.
Could it be that you are full of yourself when you write one-on-one, but sheepish to stand in public exposed for the shallow intellect that you really are? Just curious.
DEAN
ATTENTION PAUL S. KESSLER: When Will You Be Going To Dinner in Gaza?
Finally, let me ask you to rationally try and explain what you mean when you state that I am "more dangerous than an Arab with a gun in a group of Jews; at least everyone knows that individual's true intentions." For real?
I invite you to spend a Shabbos at my home after you've spent a Shabbos with your Arab friends in Gaza. Only then you can make a fair comparison.
<< MORE >>
Snowed. Bamboozled. Completely Taken in by Media Spin!
Very, very few in this country have any kind of recollection, personal or otherwise, of true tyranny. The old Soviet Union is gone and forgotten; never mind it threatens to re-emerge under Putin. Hitler? He's so incorporated into ordinary media-speak that folks routinely compare a surly sales clerk or bureaucrat to Hitler. Even Jews who self-righteously compare any number of others whose policies or actions they disagree with to Hitler; Somehow they have forgotten that to casually do so cheapens the memory that Jews, above any other people, must keep finely honed and singular. Shame on them! That is not material for an off-the-cuff throwaway comment in my book! Hopefully, they can just confine themselves to spitting on you and calling you a moron, always the hallmark of an informed opinion, no?
<< MORE >>
Rogovin on Rotbart: "I Cannnot Share Your Enthusiasm" for the Jewish Journal
I am ashamed to admit it, but liberal Jews are generally a bunch of Christian haters. They don't mind intermarriage with pagan Christians (meaning unchurched), but they really loathe believing and practicing Christians. With the reaction to Palin, I am afraid, this bias is too obvious to deny any longer. They will even accuse of her being a "Nazi" even though it is obvious that she would have hidden Jews if she had been there.
<< MORE >>
FAN MAIL: Me, George Bush, Dick Cheney and the Other Fear Mongers
...you have a way of blasting your opinion, using one-sided rhetoric and giving conclusions with few hypotheses. You use the current administration's methodology of fear to drive your points. Its unintelligent and drives people away more than it includes them. Some may say its clever and prefer that approach but this approach is unfortunately used by some very skewed, sick, and hateful media mongers. The majority of the public is sick of this style. I know that I am. That is how you come across.
<< MORE >>
The Ghost of America's Future: December 2010
Despite the charges, President Obama remains popular in broad public opinion polls. Surveys show that large portions of the American electorate continue to support the President's defense and economic positions and believe the charges against him are politically and racially charged.
"The fact of the matter is that President Obama is restoring America's reputation among our allies and the cancer that is global terrorism is too large for any one nation to combat," said Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House. "The tragedies of Boston, Los Angeles, Seattle, Dallas and Charlotte should not be politicized," she added.<< MORE >>
Unpublished Letters to the Editor
My article in the November 12, 2008 edition of the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles has generated a great deal of response. Many thousands of people have read it in print and online. Dozens of readers have written responses to me directly because I listed my email at the bottom of the article.
In the November 19th edition of the paper, three letters to the editor concerning my column were published. A few additional letters are included in the Jewish Journal's online edition. Undoubtedly the paper received many more comments.
In the November 19th edition of the paper, three letters to the editor concerning my column were published. A few additional letters are included in the Jewish Journal's online edition. Undoubtedly the paper received many more comments. At last count, a couple dozen bloggers and other Internet sites are discussing the column. I've been interviewed by one news organization and have an interview scheduled with a second.
I have found the letters instructive. Some accuse me viscously of narrow-mindedness and base motives, without pausing even momentarily to reread -- much less consider -- their own hate-filled screeds. A few have been amazingly thoughtful, even among those who criticize me.
That the column touched a nerve is undeniable. My guess is that I failed to move anyone off what was their basic view prior to reading the piece. Those who share my beliefs were heartened to hear someone else express them. Those who disagree, were only reinforced in their conviction of our idiocy.
I will keep trying in the hope that I may yet plant a seed of doubt even in those who are most forceful in their denials of my words and my right to express them. Can those who speak with such unadulterated anger truly believe that they do so in the pursuit of a greater good?
As comments below, you will find real, unedited emails that I've received from those wishing to comment on my article. They are posted in random order. (Please check back often as I will load fresh posts and am still adding earlier comments, which takes some time.) When I've been able to reply, I have. You can read my replies as well.
If you wish to comment, I encourage you to add your thoughts too. I can be reached at dr@deanrotbart.com.
Republican Jewish Coalition Responds To My Query
On November 11, I wrote to Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition in Washington D.C. to ask about his article titled Tough questions about Obama need to be asked. The editorial is posted on the RJC website and has subsequently been reprinted in a variety of venues.
I copied my email to Suzanne Kurtz, press secretary and she replied on behalf of the RJC. I hope you will take a moment to read Mr. Brooks's column, my questions and comments and Ms. Kurtz's reply. Then tell me what you think.
=============================
MY Email to Matt Brooks:
On 11/10/08 1:02 PM, "Dean Rotbart" <dr@deanrotbart.com> wrote:
I copied my email to Suzanne Kurtz, press secretary and she replied on behalf of the RJC. I hope you will take a moment to read Mr. Brooks's column, my questions and comments and Ms. Kurtz's reply. Then tell me what you think.
=============================
MY Email to Matt Brooks:
On 11/10/08 1:02 PM, "Dean Rotbart" <dr@deanrotbart.com> wrote:
Mr. Brooks,
I am a Los Angeles-based writer and have a question about your remarks in the Op-Ed titled "Tough Questions about Obama..."
I am planning to comment on your thoughts and hope you can clarify your thinking so I don't inadvertantly misrepresent your remarks.
What most caught my attention was this sentence: "Obama was unable to exceed Bill Clinton or Al Gore, and only slightly improved on John Kerry's support in the Jewish community."
To my eyes, such a result is a huge disgrace. Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry didn't have Obama's long record of associations with anti-Jewish preachers and other hateful leaders. That the Jewish community actually voted Democratic in numbers similar to past Presidential elections sets off five-bell alarms with me.
What am I missing? If the Jewish community didn't abandon the Democratic party in 2008 with Obama at the head of its ticket, what would it take for them to vote Republican?
<< MORE >>
An Apology to John McCain, Sarah Palin, et. al.
In this Friday's edition of the Los Angeles Jewish Journal I have an Op-Ed piece about the Jewish vote and the non-Jews who continue to offer unyielding support to Israel. It can be found here.
You may also wish to read some of the comments posted on my blog, as well as those on the Sean Hannity forums and Ann Coulter forums. Registration may be required to view the Hannity and Coulter forums. You may comment here without editing.
Please feel free to leave your comments. If you wish me to respond, include your email (not for publication). You may also send comments directly to the editor of the Jewish Journal at: letters@jewishjournal.com. I have zero control over which letters and comments the paper selects for publication.
My column is generating a lot of response, much of it well-reasoned and some of it quite nasty.
Bad Reporting Is Bad Reporting, Even If You Like What Is Being Said
In the aftermath of the this week's Presidential election, there is one journalistic observation that I believe merits attention: regardless of your political affiliation, bad reporting is bad reporting - even when it favors your candidate or your point of view.
Election 2008 was the granddaddy of all elections when it comes to partisan, ineffectual, inaccurate reporting and in that regards, both John McCain and Barack Obama were losers.
More importantly, the American people were losers because on way too many occasions, we read and watched the sort of agenda-driven news coverage that only fuels public suspicion that all journalists are shills for some puppet master.
Quoting unnamed McCain campaign sources, here is some of what Cameron reported on Nov. 5th*:
Cameron made no effort to explain what his sources have to gain from releasing this information. Many solid journalists, obviously not including Cameron, wouldn't repeat such pernicous information coming from sources who ask to remain unnamed.
Nor did Cameron venture to point out that even if all that the McCain operatives are saying about Governor Palin is factual, they were the ones who nominated her in the first place. Might it be in their self-interest, masked behind anonymity, to try to get the public to believe they weren't responsible for their own dumb choice - if that is what they are now contending adding Palin to the ticket was?
<< MORE >>
Election 2008 was the granddaddy of all elections when it comes to partisan, ineffectual, inaccurate reporting and in that regards, both John McCain and Barack Obama were losers.
More importantly, the American people were losers because on way too many occasions, we read and watched the sort of agenda-driven news coverage that only fuels public suspicion that all journalists are shills for some puppet master.
Fox News' Chief Political Correspondent, Carl Cameron, who covered the McCain campaign, breathlessly reported on the O'Reilly Factor about McCain insiders who were now letting out the 'truth' about how dumb, how uncooperative, how greedy and how bitchy Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin really is.To single out a specific example is probably unfair because there are so many worthy examples. But I simply can't let pass unnoticed the incendiary, flagrant television dispatch I witnessed the day after the election.
Cameron
Quoting unnamed McCain campaign sources, here is some of what Cameron reported on Nov. 5th*:
Early on, they [McCain operatives] began to discover that there were these gaps in her knowledge. I just want to rattle off a couple of the things that insiders say she just simply didn't know. There were real problems with basic civics, government structures; municipal state and federal government responsibilities. She didn't know the nations involved in the North American Free Trade Agreement, we're told. She didn't understand, McCain aides told me today, that Africa was a continent and not a country, and actually asked them -- they argue, they say -- if South Africa wasn't just part of the country as opposed to a country in the continent.And this Leona Helmsley-like characterization from Cameron*:
There are stories that say she would look at her press clippings in the morning and throw what has been described to me as "tantrums." .... They have suggested that she's a bit of a shopoholic and that on more than one occasion she would go out and buy clothes that to many seemed unnecessary because the campaign had already provided her with a very large wardrobe, uh, a wardrobe that famously rang up a bill of $150,000, mostly because they bought extra sizes to make sure everything fit.For the sake of argument, let's say that Cameron's reporting is 100% accurate. One does not have to be a fan of the Alaska governor to realize Cameron's unprofessionalism in conveying those "facts' in a vacuum.
Cameron made no effort to explain what his sources have to gain from releasing this information. Many solid journalists, obviously not including Cameron, wouldn't repeat such pernicous information coming from sources who ask to remain unnamed.
Nor did Cameron venture to point out that even if all that the McCain operatives are saying about Governor Palin is factual, they were the ones who nominated her in the first place. Might it be in their self-interest, masked behind anonymity, to try to get the public to believe they weren't responsible for their own dumb choice - if that is what they are now contending adding Palin to the ticket was?
<< MORE >>
Everywhere I Look I See 'It': Self-Serving Journalists
Some would say "it" is just one of the perks of being a journalist. "It" is so commonplace, few question the ethics of "it" any longer.
CBS News' Bob Schieffer does "it" quite openly and his colleagues in the media applaud. Literally. Most other journalists are more discreet, but no less guilty.
A recent example is Julie Bain, who writes on health for Reader's Digest. While traveling with her mom not long ago, Julie became worried after her mother complained repeatedly of leg pain.
"Being a health journalist with lots of medical knowledge (although no clinical training), I was worried that she might have developed deep vein thrombosis (DVT), a blood clot in the leg that can block blood flow and cause pain," Julie writes in a September Readers Digest blog post.
Worried, Julie did what any concerned family member might well do, she picked up the phone and called DVT expert Geoffrey Westrich, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City, who has published more than 20 studies on DVT prevention. The good doctor reassured her that mom was ailing with shingles, not DVT.
Would Dr. Westrich have taken Julie's call if Julie were not an influential health journalist? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
When Bob Schieffer took the stage earlier this week at the Grand Ole Opry and sang to an appreciative, invitation-only crowd comprised of many journalists in town to cover the Presidential debate, he fulfilled a long-held dream.
"Can I say something I've wanted to say all my life?" Schieffer asked the receptive crowd. "I'm Bob Schieffer, and I'm proud to be on the Grand Ole Opry!"
Schieffer's performance, sandwiched between country and western stars Trisha Yearwood and Brad Paisley, is an experience that I'm certain many tens of thousands of other Americans would also enjoy. But they aren't journalists, so they might as well forget it.
Does being a journalist imbue one with the right to accept what is offered strictly by dint of one's chosen profession? Schieffer was not at the Grand Ole Opry to report a first-person story on singing there. He is, after all, not CBS's music correspondent.
No, Schieffer used his journalism renown to buy himself an experience with a currency not available to the bulk of his viewers.
Was it okay for Schieffer to accept the invitation to perform when it has nothing to do with his editorial duties, but everything to do with the stature his job affords him? Is it okay for a restaurant reviewer to use her position to get a hard-to-get table, when she has no plans to review the restaurant? Is it acceptable for financial journalists to take their children to special screenings of soon-to-be-released films, when those children don't have a byline and could never get in if mom or pop weren't a journalist?
A number of years back, Gina Boyd, a reporter working for me, interviewed Robert Thomson, now managing editor of The Wall Street Journal. At the time, Robert was the U.S. managing editor of The Financial Times and seen frequently on national television.
Gina asked him if all the television exposure and recognition ever goes to his head. Robert replied: "I think you have to be careful. One of the things you learn in Australia is to take the piss out of yourself. You have to be self-effacing. Or otherwise, you lose your way. And if you don't have your bearings, in whatever you do, you won't do it well."
Well, I don't know whether Bob Schieffer, Julia Bain, and hundreds like them have failed to take the piss out of themselves or not.
But I do know that journalists, as a bunch, are not held in the high and noble esteem that they should be, and I believe one of the reasons is that they mistake the importance of their jobs for self importance.
"It" means accepting any perk, no matter how trivial or lacking in pecuniary value, that is offered to you that wouldn't be offered just as willingly to the lowliest of your viewers or readers.
I do not ascribe good motives to anyone who facilitates the wishes of a journalist, unless those needs are clearly and openly related to the immediate performance of that journalist's job.
At best, such facilitators are suck ups. At worst, they are dolling out well-disguised bribes for which they expect to collect at a future date. And any journalist who accepts is a co-conspirator.
One of my journalism school professors and mentors, the late Richard Hainey, used to lecture us at Northwestern University about being seduced by journalism's perks and privileges. Like Robert Thomson, he warned us in sometimes colorful language about those who might dangle goodies in front of us, be they gifts, meals or experiences unavailable to others.
Professor Hainey might have liked to sing at the Grand Ole Opry (though I doubt it) or to harvest the best medical minds anytime a family member took ill. But he never would have done it.
No. In his best inimical editor's voice, Professor Hainey would have told anyone who offered him a chance to sing along with Trisha and Brad exactly where they should shove "it." Would that more journalists follow suit!
CBS News' Bob Schieffer does "it" quite openly and his colleagues in the media applaud. Literally. Most other journalists are more discreet, but no less guilty.
A recent example is Julie Bain, who writes on health for Reader's Digest. While traveling with her mom not long ago, Julie became worried after her mother complained repeatedly of leg pain.
"Being a health journalist with lots of medical knowledge (although no clinical training), I was worried that she might have developed deep vein thrombosis (DVT), a blood clot in the leg that can block blood flow and cause pain," Julie writes in a September Readers Digest blog post.
Is it acceptable for financial journalists to take their children to special screenings of soon-to-be-released films, when those children don't have a byline and could never get in if mom or pop weren't a journalist?
Worried, Julie did what any concerned family member might well do, she picked up the phone and called DVT expert Geoffrey Westrich, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City, who has published more than 20 studies on DVT prevention. The good doctor reassured her that mom was ailing with shingles, not DVT.
Would Dr. Westrich have taken Julie's call if Julie were not an influential health journalist? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
When Bob Schieffer took the stage earlier this week at the Grand Ole Opry and sang to an appreciative, invitation-only crowd comprised of many journalists in town to cover the Presidential debate, he fulfilled a long-held dream.
"Can I say something I've wanted to say all my life?" Schieffer asked the receptive crowd. "I'm Bob Schieffer, and I'm proud to be on the Grand Ole Opry!"
Schieffer's performance, sandwiched between country and western stars Trisha Yearwood and Brad Paisley, is an experience that I'm certain many tens of thousands of other Americans would also enjoy. But they aren't journalists, so they might as well forget it.
Does being a journalist imbue one with the right to accept what is offered strictly by dint of one's chosen profession? Schieffer was not at the Grand Ole Opry to report a first-person story on singing there. He is, after all, not CBS's music correspondent.
No, Schieffer used his journalism renown to buy himself an experience with a currency not available to the bulk of his viewers.
Was it okay for Schieffer to accept the invitation to perform when it has nothing to do with his editorial duties, but everything to do with the stature his job affords him? Is it okay for a restaurant reviewer to use her position to get a hard-to-get table, when she has no plans to review the restaurant? Is it acceptable for financial journalists to take their children to special screenings of soon-to-be-released films, when those children don't have a byline and could never get in if mom or pop weren't a journalist?
A number of years back, Gina Boyd, a reporter working for me, interviewed Robert Thomson, now managing editor of The Wall Street Journal. At the time, Robert was the U.S. managing editor of The Financial Times and seen frequently on national television.
Gina asked him if all the television exposure and recognition ever goes to his head. Robert replied: "I think you have to be careful. One of the things you learn in Australia is to take the piss out of yourself. You have to be self-effacing. Or otherwise, you lose your way. And if you don't have your bearings, in whatever you do, you won't do it well."
Well, I don't know whether Bob Schieffer, Julia Bain, and hundreds like them have failed to take the piss out of themselves or not.
But I do know that journalists, as a bunch, are not held in the high and noble esteem that they should be, and I believe one of the reasons is that they mistake the importance of their jobs for self importance.
"It" means accepting any perk, no matter how trivial or lacking in pecuniary value, that is offered to you that wouldn't be offered just as willingly to the lowliest of your viewers or readers.
I do not ascribe good motives to anyone who facilitates the wishes of a journalist, unless those needs are clearly and openly related to the immediate performance of that journalist's job.
 |
| Medill's Richard Hainey |
One of my journalism school professors and mentors, the late Richard Hainey, used to lecture us at Northwestern University about being seduced by journalism's perks and privileges. Like Robert Thomson, he warned us in sometimes colorful language about those who might dangle goodies in front of us, be they gifts, meals or experiences unavailable to others.
Professor Hainey might have liked to sing at the Grand Ole Opry (though I doubt it) or to harvest the best medical minds anytime a family member took ill. But he never would have done it.
No. In his best inimical editor's voice, Professor Hainey would have told anyone who offered him a chance to sing along with Trisha and Brad exactly where they should shove "it." Would that more journalists follow suit!
PR: A Game You Can't Win Playing By the Rules
Being nice doesn't work. Being honest is only rewarded, if you say something that is honestly shocking. Asking for fairness is silly. Behaving the way you'd like your competition to behave may get you into heaven, but it won't get you on television.
These are just a few of the many public relations insights I've garnered by observing the profession for more than 20 years. Here are some more that have been in my view of late....
On a scale of 1-10, with five being the truth as you see it and each integer up being the truth "magnified" exponentially, then those who get the most media coverage pitch journalists stories that are 9s and 10s. They don't lie. They just lead with their strongest argument and then magnify it until the media can't ignore it.
When CEOs and PR people tell me "the story" they wish to get press coverage for, I can pretty quickly map for them where the 9s and 10s of their particular tale lie. The visceral reaction I usually get is, "but that is such a simplification" or "that's a gross exaggeration." Exactly. Fives don't get noticed. Tens do.
Here is the formula: Find a message. Your message. Trim it to its core. Your core. Then re-inflate it until it moves from a 5 to a 10. That is, if you want publicity.
Lots of CEOS and PR people think they want publicity, but they want it on their terms. Won't happen. The media have too much to do to bother with stories that can't rise to the top of newsworthy scale. If you won't make your story exciting, reporters and editors certainly won't do it for you.
I really don't know if there is such a thing as 'absolute truth.' But I can tell you this: Those individuals who play by the rules of media relations lose or lose almost always. To win, you have to be willing to play the media relations game the way it really works. Not how you wish it worked.
These are just a few of the many public relations insights I've garnered by observing the profession for more than 20 years. Here are some more that have been in my view of late....
On a scale of 1-10, with five being the truth as you see it and each integer up being the truth "magnified" exponentially, then those who get the most media coverage pitch journalists stories that are 9s and 10s. They don't lie. They just lead with their strongest argument and then magnify it until the media can't ignore it.
When CEOs and PR people tell me "the story" they wish to get press coverage for, I can pretty quickly map for them where the 9s and 10s of their particular tale lie. The visceral reaction I usually get is, "but that is such a simplification" or "that's a gross exaggeration." Exactly. Fives don't get noticed. Tens do.
Here is the formula: Find a message. Your message. Trim it to its core. Your core. Then re-inflate it until it moves from a 5 to a 10. That is, if you want publicity.
Lots of CEOS and PR people think they want publicity, but they want it on their terms. Won't happen. The media have too much to do to bother with stories that can't rise to the top of newsworthy scale. If you won't make your story exciting, reporters and editors certainly won't do it for you.
I really don't know if there is such a thing as 'absolute truth.' But I can tell you this: Those individuals who play by the rules of media relations lose or lose almost always. To win, you have to be willing to play the media relations game the way it really works. Not how you wish it worked.
What's Wrong with WSJ. Magazine Cover?
It's a businessman's fantasy: Sexy model Diana Dondoe clad only in recent editions of The Wall Street Journal that have been contoured to fit her sumptuous figure by none other than fashion bad-boy designer Roland Mouret.Okay, so forget about the printer's ink that Diana no doubt later had to shower off will a Brillo pad and the fact that the dress couldn't be very perspiration friendly.
What really kills the fantasy for newsroom junkies such as me is the fact that the bylines appearing on Diana's dress are outdated. In fact, Jackie Calmes, featured on the front-page story that adorns Diana's left should (along with June Kronholtz) now writes for The New York Times and hasn't graced the pages of the Journal since June of this year.
Other discernible bylines on the cover of WSJ. magazine include:
Suzanne Craig -- precariously close to Diana's left breast.
Valerie Bauerlein and David Enrich -- folded over Diana's heart.
(Article dated June 3, 2008 on the forced departure of Wachovia Corp. CEO G. Kennedy Thompson.)
Monica Langley, deputy Washington bureau chief -- whose bylines is punctuated by Diana's right...um....nipple.
Sarah McBride -- barely visible adorning Diana's right shoulder.
Two of the articles visible on Mouret's dress clearly focus on Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama.
Celebrities Unplugged: A Few Unrehearsed Moments wth Will Ferrell and Minnie Driver
WHO ARE THEY: Strangers on a Plane, Faces in a Crowd, The Driver in the Rear-View Mirror?
I suppose that living in Los Angeles, I should expect to have that periodic encounter with a genuine celebrity. Yet each time I do, I'm wowed by the convergence of circumstances that must take place in order to put me and some famous entertainer, business leader or politician in the exact same location at the exact same time.
Yesterday my wife and I were running late, rushing to an appointment in a multi-story Beverly Hills office building located a brief stroll from Rodeo Drive. We both boarded an elevator only to realize we didn't know what floor our meeting was on, so we made a hasty exit to consult the building directory.
Scurrying into the next elevator we joined a single occupant, standing along the back wall at the far left, humming to himself. "We've seen a few of your movies," I said casually, trying to distance myself from the ordinary star-struck fan. "Our whole family is a big fan."
This is true.
A year earlier, I, my wife and our two kids made a day of it standing in line and waiting endlessly as movie extras, just so we could watch Will Ferrell film Semi-Pro in a mock stadium constructed near Chavez Ravine, not far from where the Los Angeles Dodgers play baseball. At the time, the closest we got to Ferrell was row 135A.
Now we are standing alone with the movie star and Saturday Night Live alum in a closed elevator. He is my captive audience. At least for another 15-30 seconds until the elevator deposits him on the next floor. (We got off with him and he kindly and warmly agreed to pose for a picture with my wife.)
Coincidentally, it's not been a week since my kids and I were standing in the checkout line at a Malibu coffee shop and I glanced over to recognize a very pregnant Minnie Driver paying for her order in the adjoining line. Like Will -- (having shared that elevator moment I'm now on a first-name basis with him) -- Minnie seemingly went unrecognized by others. Either that, or the Malibu crowd was just too cool (jaded?) to acknowledge her.
As we watched Minnie leave the shop and recover her dog -- which had waited obediently outdoors for her return, we found it funny that 100 yards away a swarm of paparazzi were waiting to catch a glimpse of some lesser-light models who were doing a promotional gig for some cosmetic or fashion designer. They were oblivious to Minnie, who wasn't wearing makeup and was quite unplugged from the usual celebrity trappings.
<< MORE >>
I suppose that living in Los Angeles, I should expect to have that periodic encounter with a genuine celebrity. Yet each time I do, I'm wowed by the convergence of circumstances that must take place in order to put me and some famous entertainer, business leader or politician in the exact same location at the exact same time.
Yesterday my wife and I were running late, rushing to an appointment in a multi-story Beverly Hills office building located a brief stroll from Rodeo Drive. We both boarded an elevator only to realize we didn't know what floor our meeting was on, so we made a hasty exit to consult the building directory.
Scurrying into the next elevator we joined a single occupant, standing along the back wall at the far left, humming to himself. "We've seen a few of your movies," I said casually, trying to distance myself from the ordinary star-struck fan. "Our whole family is a big fan."
This is true.
 |
| A Chance Encounter: Will and Talya |
Now we are standing alone with the movie star and Saturday Night Live alum in a closed elevator. He is my captive audience. At least for another 15-30 seconds until the elevator deposits him on the next floor. (We got off with him and he kindly and warmly agreed to pose for a picture with my wife.)
Coincidentally, it's not been a week since my kids and I were standing in the checkout line at a Malibu coffee shop and I glanced over to recognize a very pregnant Minnie Driver paying for her order in the adjoining line. Like Will -- (having shared that elevator moment I'm now on a first-name basis with him) -- Minnie seemingly went unrecognized by others. Either that, or the Malibu crowd was just too cool (jaded?) to acknowledge her.
 |  |
| The paparazzi were so focused here... | ...they missed Minnie and her pooch |
As we watched Minnie leave the shop and recover her dog -- which had waited obediently outdoors for her return, we found it funny that 100 yards away a swarm of paparazzi were waiting to catch a glimpse of some lesser-light models who were doing a promotional gig for some cosmetic or fashion designer. They were oblivious to Minnie, who wasn't wearing makeup and was quite unplugged from the usual celebrity trappings.
<< MORE >>
Walter Tittle: Writer, Sketch Artist, Bon Vivant!
By Maxwell Rotbart
I am a 21st century blogger who recently searched for my name on Google to see how many results show up.
A modest four websites mention me. I then entered the name Walter Tittle, a virtuoso from the first half of the 20th century who is not very well known today. (He is so little known that I was able to purchase www.waltertittle.com for six dollars and eighty-five cents, before fees.) Much to my astonishment, his name appears on 4,370 websites picked up by Google. Not bad for a man who died well before Al Gore invented the Internet.
I first stumbled upon Tittle's name after reading an article (Personalities in a Parisian Salon: More Portraits in Pencil and Pen) that he wrote in 1925 for Century Magazine. In the article, Tittle speaks of the different social graces among the "Anglos" and all other cultures (namely the French). I was fascinated by how vividly he depicts the streets of Paris.
At one point, Tittle describes the Marquis de Castellane, a guest at a Parisian party, in the following terms:
And yet, despite Tittle's artistic and unique compositions, he is best remembered by the sketches and portraits he drew.
<< MORE >>
I am a 21st century blogger who recently searched for my name on Google to see how many results show up.
A modest four websites mention me. I then entered the name Walter Tittle, a virtuoso from the first half of the 20th century who is not very well known today. (He is so little known that I was able to purchase www.waltertittle.com for six dollars and eighty-five cents, before fees.) Much to my astonishment, his name appears on 4,370 websites picked up by Google. Not bad for a man who died well before Al Gore invented the Internet.
 |  |
 |  |
I first stumbled upon Tittle's name after reading an article (Personalities in a Parisian Salon: More Portraits in Pencil and Pen) that he wrote in 1925 for Century Magazine. In the article, Tittle speaks of the different social graces among the "Anglos" and all other cultures (namely the French). I was fascinated by how vividly he depicts the streets of Paris.
At one point, Tittle describes the Marquis de Castellane, a guest at a Parisian party, in the following terms:
"He is still quite handsome, with his patrician cast of features and exceedingly erect carriage; his salient chest suggests military training, and his blond hair is still worn high, though time has thinned it considerably.
He was clad in light tweeds, with white boutonnikre and kerchief in evidence, the note being repeated by white spats, which he always wears. He had a bulldog in leash, smart with its curious clown-like ruff of heavy leather trimmed with monkey fur, and the frantic greetings between it and Mme. Carolus-Duran's dog, one of the same litter, stopped all conversation temporarily and threatened the physical equilibrium of guests and furniture alike."
And yet, despite Tittle's artistic and unique compositions, he is best remembered by the sketches and portraits he drew.
<< MORE >>
Eyewitness Heaven: What Do You Think the Almighty Had to Say to Leona Helmsley?
I would like to be the heavenly correspondent who witnessed Leona Helmsley when she went to meet her maker last year, at the age of 87.
I doubt that He would probe her deeply about her 1989 conviction on federal income tax evasion or even on her haughty disposition when it came to employees and others less fortunate than she.
But I do think the Almighty would have some important questions on why Mrs. Helmsley wrote indigent people out of her $5 billion to $8 billion will in favor of directing that all the money go to the care and welfare of dogs.
No doubt Mrs. Helmsley loved canines and no doubt dogs deserve our respect for their companionship and loyalty. But I seriously doubt that God has the kind of sense of humor that would appreciate Mrs. Helmsley's total disregard for the good her funds -- which she earned by the grace of God -- could do for two-legged humanity.
Perhaps, in our capitalistic system, we have no right to tell the über rich how they should allocate their estates. Perhaps. But I doubt that heaven shares our free-enterprise sensibilities.
No, my suspicion is that all her money did not buy Mrs. Helmsley a first-class ticket to eternal bliss. Quite the contrary, if there is justice in the afterlife, she will be spending eternity picking up after the canines she was so devoted to in her mortal life.