Chicken Little is alive in Madison, and he’s disguised as “Severe Doppler Radar”. I laughed out loud when I heard this new term Tuesday night on one of the local TV stations. It’s the station that’s always tracking storms. “Severe Doppler”. Of course, there is no such thing; it’s just the latest example of the fear-mongering done by the weather folks.
I’m not picking on Bob Lindmeier. He’s as nice a guy as any of the other local TV weather folks, and each of them is a weather-nanny in their own way. The science involved in their profession seems to have been co-opted by the marketing and consulting crowd, and to play the game, you’ve got to try and scare people.
I have a friend who travels quite a bit in his line of work. He’s on airplanes probably 200 times a year, visiting a huge assortment of American cities. He’s the George Clooney character from the movie “Up In The Air”, except he doesn’t swoop into town to fire people. He’s a former broadcaster, so he watches the local TV news in the cities he’s working in, and he agrees with me that Madison is by far the most weather-nanny-ish city in the nation.
“Severe” Doppler, indeed. Where is Elmer Childress when we need him!!??
At one point, at around 6:57PM Tuesday, Bob had no less than 17 “tornadoes” depicted on his super-duper-weather-map….those little round thingys that spin, which apparently show that there’s potential rotation in the air mass at that point. I say “no less than”, because I paused the TV picture with my DVR, and counted. But some parts of the screen were blocked out by other graphics that were part of the colorful presentation, so I couldn’t be exact.
It’s designed to terrify you, and make you believe that if you don’t have this particular station on, you could die.
For those of you who may be new to the Madison area, let me help you understand the terminology, so you and your family can be safe during the long spring and summer season ahead. There are only two types of weather warning on Madison TV: there’s the “Severe Tornado Warning” and the “Extremely Severe Tornado Warning.”
The first means it’s cloudy, and it might rain. The second means it might storm, with thunder and lightning.
Because I’m an insider, I can tell you about the warning you’ll never see on TV, and that’s the ultra-secret “Bob-Gary-David-Laurie” alert. That’s when all four of the city’s Chief Meteorologists, Bob Lindmeier, Gary Cannalte, David George, and Laurie Mercurio have called their families and told them to take cover. It means the four of them agree that we really could actually have some truly severe weather. The “Bob-Gary-David-Laurie” alert is extremely rare, and you’ll never know about it.
OK, I’m being snotty and sarcastic and snarky here. I’ve met three of these chief meteorologists, and I’ve know Gary Cannalte for 20 years, and worked with him in my local radio days, and he’s as fine a person and friend as you could ever ask for…and there’s nobody I’d rather have “on my side” when we’re in for severe weather.
My gripe with their “product” – all three of them – is that it’s shaped and influenced by marketing and ratings goals, and it’s far more intrusive than I think is necessary. And, in a Cap Times informal survey a year or so ago, most people hold my point of view that it seems the TV stations are just a bit too intense with their marketing of fear. Science has been overshadowed by commerce, and legitimate concern has been trumped by the race to be “THE” weather station. It’s all about image and ratings – under the guise of “keeping your family safe”.
“Severe” Doppler, indeed. The Austrian physicist it’s named for (Christian Doppler) is rolling in his grave.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Pick One: TV or the Internet - Which Do You Keep?
Right now it’s neck-and-neck, with the Internet pulling ahead of TV. A new study from Edison Research and Arbitron – the TV ratings people – says just over 49% of Americans would give up their TV before their Internet service, with 48% saying they’d rather keep TV than the Internet if they had to make a choice.
Edison, a respected research firm, says when the question was first asked in 2001, nearly three-quarters of those polled (72%) said they’d give up the Internet before they’d give up TV. Every year since then, the Internet has trended toward being our favorite choice, to the point now where it’s pretty much 50-50.
The way we get news, and the way we consume media, is rapidly changing.
More than a quarter of American adults now say they get news on their cell phone. Three-quarters of smart-phone users say they get their weather forecast from their phone. And now, just about every American (92%) say they use multiple sources (TV, radio, print, Internet, phone) to get their daily dose of news.
Local TV news still ranks top among news consumers, but national network news is a close second. Next in rank order is online news….like what you’re reading right now….followed by radio news, local newspapers, and national newspapers. Only half of the Americans surveyed now say they actually read a local newspaper, while 78% say they get it from TV, and about half say they listen to radio news at home or in the car.
Half of the people surveyed by the Pew Internet and American Life Project say they use four to six different “platforms” every day to get their news.
We’re also becoming far more “interconnected” in our own homes, as TV and the Internet continue to blend together. Liechtman Research Group data says a quarter of American homes have an Internet-to-TV connection, and 5% of us are watching stuff like YouTube and Hulu on our TV’s, not on a computer screen.
My friend, top-notch radio consultant Holland Cooke pulled all this information together. He’s the guy doing his best to help AM radio stations stay alive in the midst of all this new competition.
One other tidbit: Cooke writes slogans for a living (among other things) and his headline on this item is “Are you ready for some phone-ball?” Verizon Wireless has just signed a $720-million four-year deal to stream NFL games – yes, stream to cell phone users – who will pay $13 a month.
To watch NFL games on their phone.
No thanks….I’ll be seated in front of my 65-inch HDTV on Sunday afternoons this fall. The times are changing, but, in my opinion in this case, not for the better.
Football on a phone. No thanks.
Edison, a respected research firm, says when the question was first asked in 2001, nearly three-quarters of those polled (72%) said they’d give up the Internet before they’d give up TV. Every year since then, the Internet has trended toward being our favorite choice, to the point now where it’s pretty much 50-50.
The way we get news, and the way we consume media, is rapidly changing.
More than a quarter of American adults now say they get news on their cell phone. Three-quarters of smart-phone users say they get their weather forecast from their phone. And now, just about every American (92%) say they use multiple sources (TV, radio, print, Internet, phone) to get their daily dose of news.
Local TV news still ranks top among news consumers, but national network news is a close second. Next in rank order is online news….like what you’re reading right now….followed by radio news, local newspapers, and national newspapers. Only half of the Americans surveyed now say they actually read a local newspaper, while 78% say they get it from TV, and about half say they listen to radio news at home or in the car.
Half of the people surveyed by the Pew Internet and American Life Project say they use four to six different “platforms” every day to get their news.
We’re also becoming far more “interconnected” in our own homes, as TV and the Internet continue to blend together. Liechtman Research Group data says a quarter of American homes have an Internet-to-TV connection, and 5% of us are watching stuff like YouTube and Hulu on our TV’s, not on a computer screen.
My friend, top-notch radio consultant Holland Cooke pulled all this information together. He’s the guy doing his best to help AM radio stations stay alive in the midst of all this new competition.
One other tidbit: Cooke writes slogans for a living (among other things) and his headline on this item is “Are you ready for some phone-ball?” Verizon Wireless has just signed a $720-million four-year deal to stream NFL games – yes, stream to cell phone users – who will pay $13 a month.
To watch NFL games on their phone.
No thanks….I’ll be seated in front of my 65-inch HDTV on Sunday afternoons this fall. The times are changing, but, in my opinion in this case, not for the better.
Football on a phone. No thanks.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
I Had My Say (At The Polls) Yesterday
The old saying proclaims that we get the kind of government we deserve. We must not deserve very good government, since so few of us care about it, on the basic, local level. There were no state-wide issues to decide yesterday; no state legislators to vote for or against; just local and regional decisions. School board, referenda, county board, judge. Government at the basic level.
At 11 o’clock, I was the 74th voter at the Town of Madison town hall. Five of my neighbors were there, doing their job, checking to make sure I was who I said I was, keeping track of the votes, helping people who had questions about the ballot, helping them find out which ward they live in – all that basic stuff that makes democracy work at the fundamental level.
The folks who’d signed on for the low-paying and essentially thankless job of running the polling place know who I am, and greeted me by name when I walked in. But they made me say my name and address out loud. Doing it by the book, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. After I made my choices and stuck the ballot into the electronic thingy and heard the “ding”, I thanked them for their service and told them I’d go out and try and drum up some business for them.
One of the many great things about elections here in America is the secret ballot. You don’t have to tell anybody who you voted for. And nobody has the right to tell you who to vote for, or how to vote on any issue. As Americans, we make our own laws and rules, from my sparsely-populated township ward’s ordinances, all the way up to the highest laws in our land.
We make the laws by voting for the people who will represent us, and if they don’t represent us the way we want, we vote against them. If we don’t like the laws or rules they make, we break them. They didn’t come down from God on smoking tablets; we made them. There’s usually a consequence when we get caught breaking the rules, but if enough people break the rules, we usually decide that maybe it’s the rule that’s bad, not the people who are breaking it.
If only that last sentence were truer in actuality than in theory. We have some pretty stupid laws, and some pretty ineffective representatives.
That’s why I more often than not vote against somebody than for somebody. There were a lot of folks we sent up there to the big top to fix the horrible problems with education funding in our state. They didn’t do it. And they blame everyone else. But they’re the only ones who can do it.
When I see what’s going on with public education in this state, and particularly in the Madison school district, I know I’m going to be doing a lot of “voting against” when those folks up there at the top of State Street are up for “renewal”.
Even if my friends and neighbors disagree with me and send the current lot back, I’ll have the satisfaction of knowing I had my say.
At 11 o’clock, I was the 74th voter at the Town of Madison town hall. Five of my neighbors were there, doing their job, checking to make sure I was who I said I was, keeping track of the votes, helping people who had questions about the ballot, helping them find out which ward they live in – all that basic stuff that makes democracy work at the fundamental level.
The folks who’d signed on for the low-paying and essentially thankless job of running the polling place know who I am, and greeted me by name when I walked in. But they made me say my name and address out loud. Doing it by the book, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. After I made my choices and stuck the ballot into the electronic thingy and heard the “ding”, I thanked them for their service and told them I’d go out and try and drum up some business for them.
One of the many great things about elections here in America is the secret ballot. You don’t have to tell anybody who you voted for. And nobody has the right to tell you who to vote for, or how to vote on any issue. As Americans, we make our own laws and rules, from my sparsely-populated township ward’s ordinances, all the way up to the highest laws in our land.
We make the laws by voting for the people who will represent us, and if they don’t represent us the way we want, we vote against them. If we don’t like the laws or rules they make, we break them. They didn’t come down from God on smoking tablets; we made them. There’s usually a consequence when we get caught breaking the rules, but if enough people break the rules, we usually decide that maybe it’s the rule that’s bad, not the people who are breaking it.
If only that last sentence were truer in actuality than in theory. We have some pretty stupid laws, and some pretty ineffective representatives.
That’s why I more often than not vote against somebody than for somebody. There were a lot of folks we sent up there to the big top to fix the horrible problems with education funding in our state. They didn’t do it. And they blame everyone else. But they’re the only ones who can do it.
When I see what’s going on with public education in this state, and particularly in the Madison school district, I know I’m going to be doing a lot of “voting against” when those folks up there at the top of State Street are up for “renewal”.
Even if my friends and neighbors disagree with me and send the current lot back, I’ll have the satisfaction of knowing I had my say.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
It's An Eminence Front....It's A Put-On, Right?
Like the early 80’s song from The Who, it’s an eminence front…it’s a put-on. It has to be a “face” being put forward by the Catholic Church regarding the steady drumbeat of revelations about bad priests who were protected, shuffled around, defended, and their crimes denied. But the song, most say, was about cocaine and tragedy, not the church. About how people “put on a face”, and when Pete Townsend first introduced the song, he said it’s what happens when you take too much white powder.
When Holy Mother Church officially starts blaming the media for the problem, you know there’s deep trouble.
My friend and colleague Bill Wineke writes far more eloquently than I about this topic, and he’s far more knowledgeable. But Bill’s not a Catholic, and I am – or was – and it’s a very complicated story.
As a young man growing up in Hortonville in the 50’s, our priest was Father Leo Przybylski, a Polish-American who pronounced his name “sha-BIL-ski”. He was a big man with a big sense of humor, who knew the name of every child in all 8 grades at Saints Peter and Paul School. He was like so many other priests – a dedicated man of the cloth, servant and shepherd of his parish, and a completely trustworthy man.
Like many other Catholics, I left the church not long after I left for college. I never officially stopped being a Catholic, but – again – my religious background is hopelessly complicated. I am (or was) a member of four very different religions, but they all shared one thing – one form or another of the “golden rule”. I think the Catholics officially washed their hands of me when I married a divorced Catholic woman in 1983, without obtaining the proper sanction from the Bishop. That marriage took place in a Lutheran church with a Lutheran minister; my marriage to Toni in 1997 was in the Supreme Court Chamber at the Capitol, performed by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.
This fresh scandal uncovered, regarding the deaf children in Wisconsin, is only the latest chapter, but it’s one of the ugliest. The fact that Rome now officially refers to it as “petty gossip” is deeply disturbing. Their instinct, all along, seems to have been to protect the church, rather than the victims. Now, that “protection” is to blame and try to discredit and even boycott the messenger.
It’s too late for the church to get out in front of this disgusting mess, which apparently goes all the way to the very top of the hierarchy. But it’s not too late for the church to take ownership of the problem and start working to solve it, rather than attempt to hide it or cover it up.
Father Leo Pryzybylski and the countless other Catholic priests who were dedicated servants, teachers, mentors, and role models, will not rest in their graves until the church addresses this problem and abandons the eminence front.
When Holy Mother Church officially starts blaming the media for the problem, you know there’s deep trouble.
My friend and colleague Bill Wineke writes far more eloquently than I about this topic, and he’s far more knowledgeable. But Bill’s not a Catholic, and I am – or was – and it’s a very complicated story.
As a young man growing up in Hortonville in the 50’s, our priest was Father Leo Przybylski, a Polish-American who pronounced his name “sha-BIL-ski”. He was a big man with a big sense of humor, who knew the name of every child in all 8 grades at Saints Peter and Paul School. He was like so many other priests – a dedicated man of the cloth, servant and shepherd of his parish, and a completely trustworthy man.
Like many other Catholics, I left the church not long after I left for college. I never officially stopped being a Catholic, but – again – my religious background is hopelessly complicated. I am (or was) a member of four very different religions, but they all shared one thing – one form or another of the “golden rule”. I think the Catholics officially washed their hands of me when I married a divorced Catholic woman in 1983, without obtaining the proper sanction from the Bishop. That marriage took place in a Lutheran church with a Lutheran minister; my marriage to Toni in 1997 was in the Supreme Court Chamber at the Capitol, performed by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.
This fresh scandal uncovered, regarding the deaf children in Wisconsin, is only the latest chapter, but it’s one of the ugliest. The fact that Rome now officially refers to it as “petty gossip” is deeply disturbing. Their instinct, all along, seems to have been to protect the church, rather than the victims. Now, that “protection” is to blame and try to discredit and even boycott the messenger.
It’s too late for the church to get out in front of this disgusting mess, which apparently goes all the way to the very top of the hierarchy. But it’s not too late for the church to take ownership of the problem and start working to solve it, rather than attempt to hide it or cover it up.
Father Leo Pryzybylski and the countless other Catholic priests who were dedicated servants, teachers, mentors, and role models, will not rest in their graves until the church addresses this problem and abandons the eminence front.
Monday, April 5, 2010
The iPad And Me
According to all the tech-savvy folks who write tech columns for the public prints, the Blackberry now has a “stodgy” image. Stodgy? Who knew? Blackberries, which used to be called “Crackberries” to signify the addiction their users have to the small devices, are now becoming passé. Apparently, they’re not as “interesting” as the other smart phones out there today.
Like millions of other Americans who work in the salt mines of corporate America, my wife has a Blackberry to connect her to work. A few days ago, she told me she doesn’t like it any more. Doesn’t like the tiny keyboard (but does like the tiny “keyboard” on her iPad?) and thinks the model she has is “old”. Don’t ask me what model it is…but it looks like one of the first-generation Blackberries to me. It’s black, more square than rectangular, and has a small “screen”.
I stopped being an early adopter of new technology quite a few years ago. I still have a turntable connected to my audio system! No, not the kind that scratchers and DJ’s use on the club scene; the kind that you can play LP albums on. But even my turntable has a USB cord so I can plug it into my computer, make digital files, and burn CD’s.
My wife is now officially an early adopter. She plunked down her 600 bucks Saturday and got an iPad. And another hundred bucks for something I think is called “Mobile Me”, which apparently has something to do with a cloud.
Near as I can tell, it’s just a bigger, bulkier, heavier version of her iPod Touch. You can’t make phone calls on it. You can’t take pictures with it. I guess you can play your iTunes on it, though. And read a book or newspaper, if you pay to download the content.
These tech whizzes who write columns about new gadgets claim Blackberry users are defecting in droves to the more fun new smart-phones, like the iPhone, Droid, Google Phone, and whatever else is new and exciting. Blackberry has a 42% market share, but it’s dropping. And as I peruse these columns, it seems it’s like the old Ford versus Chevy argument, in a way. iPhone users won’t say nice things about Blackberry products, nor will Droid users.
NASCAR on wi-fi.
There was a live demonstration of the new iPad on the CNN Morning Show Friday, and they compared it to the Kindle. It’s more of a contrast than a comparison. The screen on the iPad is much larger, and it can do a lot more than simply display words on a “page”. They asked the tech writer who was demonstrating the iPad if it will replace the laptop computer, and he thought not.
I have a laptop. It’s an ancient H-P laptop that got my daughter through four years at the UW, and by today’s standards, it’s a dinosaur. But it does everything I need it to do – process words and surf the web. It has a nice, big keyboard, and I don’t think I’d ever trade it for the much smaller “virtual” keyboard of the iPad.
I’ll just stick with my old H-P laptop and my ancient Motorola Razor cell phone. If either breaks down, I’ll borrow my wife’s iPad, my son’s iPhone, or my daughter’s Droid phone. I’m sure any of them would be glad to rub it in, and tell me I’m a museum piece.
And I’ll write about it on my desktop computer, which is one of the most powerful and fast computers money can buy (and my tech guys can tweak), and does anything those other devices can do, faster, better, and louder.
Except make phone calls.
Like millions of other Americans who work in the salt mines of corporate America, my wife has a Blackberry to connect her to work. A few days ago, she told me she doesn’t like it any more. Doesn’t like the tiny keyboard (but does like the tiny “keyboard” on her iPad?) and thinks the model she has is “old”. Don’t ask me what model it is…but it looks like one of the first-generation Blackberries to me. It’s black, more square than rectangular, and has a small “screen”.
I stopped being an early adopter of new technology quite a few years ago. I still have a turntable connected to my audio system! No, not the kind that scratchers and DJ’s use on the club scene; the kind that you can play LP albums on. But even my turntable has a USB cord so I can plug it into my computer, make digital files, and burn CD’s.
My wife is now officially an early adopter. She plunked down her 600 bucks Saturday and got an iPad. And another hundred bucks for something I think is called “Mobile Me”, which apparently has something to do with a cloud.
Near as I can tell, it’s just a bigger, bulkier, heavier version of her iPod Touch. You can’t make phone calls on it. You can’t take pictures with it. I guess you can play your iTunes on it, though. And read a book or newspaper, if you pay to download the content.
These tech whizzes who write columns about new gadgets claim Blackberry users are defecting in droves to the more fun new smart-phones, like the iPhone, Droid, Google Phone, and whatever else is new and exciting. Blackberry has a 42% market share, but it’s dropping. And as I peruse these columns, it seems it’s like the old Ford versus Chevy argument, in a way. iPhone users won’t say nice things about Blackberry products, nor will Droid users.
NASCAR on wi-fi.
There was a live demonstration of the new iPad on the CNN Morning Show Friday, and they compared it to the Kindle. It’s more of a contrast than a comparison. The screen on the iPad is much larger, and it can do a lot more than simply display words on a “page”. They asked the tech writer who was demonstrating the iPad if it will replace the laptop computer, and he thought not.
I have a laptop. It’s an ancient H-P laptop that got my daughter through four years at the UW, and by today’s standards, it’s a dinosaur. But it does everything I need it to do – process words and surf the web. It has a nice, big keyboard, and I don’t think I’d ever trade it for the much smaller “virtual” keyboard of the iPad.
I’ll just stick with my old H-P laptop and my ancient Motorola Razor cell phone. If either breaks down, I’ll borrow my wife’s iPad, my son’s iPhone, or my daughter’s Droid phone. I’m sure any of them would be glad to rub it in, and tell me I’m a museum piece.
And I’ll write about it on my desktop computer, which is one of the most powerful and fast computers money can buy (and my tech guys can tweak), and does anything those other devices can do, faster, better, and louder.
Except make phone calls.
Friday, April 2, 2010
NewsSpeak: No Hebrew Allowed!
Have you noticed how seldom you hear the word “get” on radio or TV these days? Hopefully not, or you’d be as crazy as I am about stuff like this. Apparently, the news writing and commercial writing gods have decreed that the word “get” shall be stricken from all public records, removed from buildings, and shall no longer be uttered in the realm.
The word that replaces get is “receive”.
“Buy one – receive one free!!!” I actually heard that on a TV commercial a few nights ago. Who talks like that? But, the point I’ve been trying to make for decades as a news writing coach is NOBODY talks like broadcasters. One of the big bosses at Chicago’s WGN stirred up a hornet’s nest a few weeks ago when he put out a memo to his staff telling them to knock off the broadcast jargon and write and speak conversational English.
Apparently, whoever the trendsetters in news and commercial writing may be, they want to make sure we don’t confuse the meanings of the word “get”. The acronym GET means different things depending on where you live. In Bakersfield, CA, it’s the bus company: Golden Empire Transit. In the state of Washington, it’s the Guaranteed Education Tuition program.
If you’re Jewish, it means divorce. A “get” is the divorce document. It is given from the husband to the wife he’s dumping, and the basic get says “You are hereby permitted to other men.” It signifies to the world that the Hebrew laws of adultery no longer apply.
So the broadcast writing trendsetters must be Jewish, and they’re happily married. No gets.
Here’s the last line of a news story that was on one of the local TV stations earlier this week: “He received non-life-threatening injuries in the crash.” Again I ask – who talks like that? Who “receives” injuries in a car wreck? The far more accepted cliché is “suffered” injuries, which is just as bad. Heaven forefend they should say “he wasn’t seriously injured” or “he’s gonna be awful sore tomorrow, but he’ll live.”
Another line from local TV last night in a commercial for a resort: “Stay two nights and receive a third night for free”! Huh? You mean stay two nights and GET the third night free. (Notice how I cleverly left out the unnecessary word “for” in front of “free”.)
From a radio story on a local station this week: “He received a citation for drunk driving”. How about “he got a ticket for drunken driving.” (That drunk/drunken thing is something all the broadcasters get wrong, every time.) Picture a cop pulling over some guy who’s weaving all over the road, giving him a field sobriety test, and then saying “Here, receive this citation.”
To bring some closure to this topic, the next time a write a rant about NewsSpeak, I’m gonna find out who changed “closing” to “closure” when they’re telling me about all the “lane closures” at the Zoo Interchange in Milwaukee or on the eastbound Beltline in Madison.
They’ll receive some “closure” from me when I catch ‘em.
The word that replaces get is “receive”.
“Buy one – receive one free!!!” I actually heard that on a TV commercial a few nights ago. Who talks like that? But, the point I’ve been trying to make for decades as a news writing coach is NOBODY talks like broadcasters. One of the big bosses at Chicago’s WGN stirred up a hornet’s nest a few weeks ago when he put out a memo to his staff telling them to knock off the broadcast jargon and write and speak conversational English.
Apparently, whoever the trendsetters in news and commercial writing may be, they want to make sure we don’t confuse the meanings of the word “get”. The acronym GET means different things depending on where you live. In Bakersfield, CA, it’s the bus company: Golden Empire Transit. In the state of Washington, it’s the Guaranteed Education Tuition program.
If you’re Jewish, it means divorce. A “get” is the divorce document. It is given from the husband to the wife he’s dumping, and the basic get says “You are hereby permitted to other men.” It signifies to the world that the Hebrew laws of adultery no longer apply.
So the broadcast writing trendsetters must be Jewish, and they’re happily married. No gets.
Here’s the last line of a news story that was on one of the local TV stations earlier this week: “He received non-life-threatening injuries in the crash.” Again I ask – who talks like that? Who “receives” injuries in a car wreck? The far more accepted cliché is “suffered” injuries, which is just as bad. Heaven forefend they should say “he wasn’t seriously injured” or “he’s gonna be awful sore tomorrow, but he’ll live.”
Another line from local TV last night in a commercial for a resort: “Stay two nights and receive a third night for free”! Huh? You mean stay two nights and GET the third night free. (Notice how I cleverly left out the unnecessary word “for” in front of “free”.)
From a radio story on a local station this week: “He received a citation for drunk driving”. How about “he got a ticket for drunken driving.” (That drunk/drunken thing is something all the broadcasters get wrong, every time.) Picture a cop pulling over some guy who’s weaving all over the road, giving him a field sobriety test, and then saying “Here, receive this citation.”
To bring some closure to this topic, the next time a write a rant about NewsSpeak, I’m gonna find out who changed “closing” to “closure” when they’re telling me about all the “lane closures” at the Zoo Interchange in Milwaukee or on the eastbound Beltline in Madison.
They’ll receive some “closure” from me when I catch ‘em.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Financial Meltdown: They Really Were That Stupid
If you liked the story line of the movie “The Blind Side”, the “football” movie which is really a unique family story – for which Sandra Bullock won the best acting Oscar, and are curious about how the economic meltdown happened, you might want to pick up the book “The Big Short”. Michael Lewis wrote the book the movie is based on, and he’s uniquely qualified to do financial writing.
Lewis actually worked on Wall Street for years, as a bond trader for Salomon Brothers. He has a Master’s Degree from the London School of Economics. But his real talent is telling stories, and his approach to explaining the financial meltdown is from a story-teller’s perspective, which means he actually makes it interesting.
In the news reports about the aftermath of the meltdown and bailouts, you probably heard terms like “credit default swap” and “collateralized debt obligation” – CDS’s and CDO’s. You don’t have to have anything but a basic understanding of what they are – and Lewis is a good “explainer” – to follow the story.
There’s another “common man” element that keeps the book interesting. Have you ever had a job where you were pretty sure the boss had no idea how to do your job, or even really what it is that you did for the company? There was a lot of that going on in the financial world prior to the meltdown. The biggest bosses at the biggest financial institutions, at least the way Lewis tells it, really did not know what their people were doing, and almost certainly didn’t understand it.
Maybe Ken Lay was telling the truth when he said he had no idea what they were really doing on the trading floor at Enron. And even though the Enron story is very different than the subprime mortgage market meltdown that put the world of finance on its knees, it’s a similar scenario. Both involved “short selling” - hence, the title of the book: The Big Short.
There are at least two sides to every bet. If you bet your pal five bucks that the Packers will beat the Bears, the two sides are obvious. Your side is the Pack; his side is the Bears. If you both agree the Packers will win, you might make a bet on the point spread: by how many points will the Pack beat the Bears. And any number of people could do the same, with a lot of other possibilities, like instead of betting on the game or point spread, you could even bet on which guy will win the wager. (Derivatives.)
You can place bets, through a broker, if you think a stock is going to go up – which is called a “long” position; or, bet that it will go down, which is a “short” position. The essence of Lewis’s story is that a very small group of investors figured out just how rotten the subprime mortgage market really was, that there was absolutely no effective oversight, that the risk evaluators (like Standard and Poor’s, and Moody’s Investor Services) had NO clue how risky the market was, and that the bigwigs had no clue whatsoever about what their traders were doing.
This small group of people “shorted” the subprime mortgage market and all the derivative investments associated with it, and made a fortune when the market collapsed.
Lewis’s narrative is fast-paced, with very interesting characters (not unlike the big football player, the precocious little brother, and the dynamic mom in “Blind Side”), and he explains the technical terms in a way that’s easy to understand.
A great story with great characters told by a great storyteller makes for a great book.
Lewis actually worked on Wall Street for years, as a bond trader for Salomon Brothers. He has a Master’s Degree from the London School of Economics. But his real talent is telling stories, and his approach to explaining the financial meltdown is from a story-teller’s perspective, which means he actually makes it interesting.
In the news reports about the aftermath of the meltdown and bailouts, you probably heard terms like “credit default swap” and “collateralized debt obligation” – CDS’s and CDO’s. You don’t have to have anything but a basic understanding of what they are – and Lewis is a good “explainer” – to follow the story.
There’s another “common man” element that keeps the book interesting. Have you ever had a job where you were pretty sure the boss had no idea how to do your job, or even really what it is that you did for the company? There was a lot of that going on in the financial world prior to the meltdown. The biggest bosses at the biggest financial institutions, at least the way Lewis tells it, really did not know what their people were doing, and almost certainly didn’t understand it.
Maybe Ken Lay was telling the truth when he said he had no idea what they were really doing on the trading floor at Enron. And even though the Enron story is very different than the subprime mortgage market meltdown that put the world of finance on its knees, it’s a similar scenario. Both involved “short selling” - hence, the title of the book: The Big Short.
There are at least two sides to every bet. If you bet your pal five bucks that the Packers will beat the Bears, the two sides are obvious. Your side is the Pack; his side is the Bears. If you both agree the Packers will win, you might make a bet on the point spread: by how many points will the Pack beat the Bears. And any number of people could do the same, with a lot of other possibilities, like instead of betting on the game or point spread, you could even bet on which guy will win the wager. (Derivatives.)
You can place bets, through a broker, if you think a stock is going to go up – which is called a “long” position; or, bet that it will go down, which is a “short” position. The essence of Lewis’s story is that a very small group of investors figured out just how rotten the subprime mortgage market really was, that there was absolutely no effective oversight, that the risk evaluators (like Standard and Poor’s, and Moody’s Investor Services) had NO clue how risky the market was, and that the bigwigs had no clue whatsoever about what their traders were doing.
This small group of people “shorted” the subprime mortgage market and all the derivative investments associated with it, and made a fortune when the market collapsed.
Lewis’s narrative is fast-paced, with very interesting characters (not unlike the big football player, the precocious little brother, and the dynamic mom in “Blind Side”), and he explains the technical terms in a way that’s easy to understand.
A great story with great characters told by a great storyteller makes for a great book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)