Where Were You on 9/11? Don't Ask

For 11 years we've remembered the day that terrorists flew planes into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 innocent people. But I still avoid conversations that begin: Where were you on 9/11? I know it's an open-ended question that prompts us to share first-hand accounts of that tragic day and its global impact. But whether it's survivor's guilt, hypersensitivity, or both, I just don't feel comfortable sharing my story.

Maybe it's because I was a young reporter at a daily newspaper in the suburbs north of New York City, just getting to work with no idea how big a story it was. Or perhaps, it was because my job post-9/11 was to help find out who died and write about them. In the first few days and weeks, it was making calls and knocking on doors, trying to find out if husbands and wives knew the status of their loved ones. Soon, I was covering memorial services and funerals, from Central Park to Scarsdale, learning about the people who died just because they worked in those two towers. It was hard for sure; but I always felt lucky just to be alive. I saw the funerals as a chance not only to write about the lives of victims, but also to learn from them. Some weeks or months after 9/11, the news staff received an email from a top editor, recognizing the work we had all done and offering us the option to turn down another funeral assignment if it was just too tough. I remember appreciating that message: the editors recognized we were all human.

Still, I never turned down an assignment. It was not because I was better than other reporters, whom I hope took breaks whenever needed. But I guess I saw reporting as my duty to the victims and their families. It didn't matter where I was on 9/11; it only mattered where they were.

140 Characters: More? Or Less?

I was reading the news online yesterday and soon found myself checking out a new website for reading and writing: Medium.com. The site is being led by Ev Williams, one of the founders of Twitter, and is designed to take over where Twitter left off. "Medium is a new place on the Internet where people share ideas and stories that are longer than 140 characters and not just for friends," Williams writes on his site.

So as a blogger looking to to grow his readership, I joined and was quite impressed. The text is clear and easy to read. The ability to comment in the margins of articles allows for focused conversations about each post. And while not everyone is allowed to post yet, the ones that I checked out were good reads.

But there still is one feature that I found a bit odd: each post is labeled with the number of minutes it should take to read. Aside from the fact that everyone reads at a different pace, the timing of writing raised a basic question: if we're worried about how much time it will take to read, why not stick with Twitter?

As someone who worked as a newspaper reporter and has witnessed the demise of both print and long-form journalism, I always thought that people just don't read as much anymore. Skype, Twitter, text messaging, and mobile phones have all replaced writing letters and sending postcards. So are we moving back into the golden age of reading? Are people going to suddenly start checking out 20 minute articles and books, and discussing them with their friends? Or are photos and six-second videos going to become the way we keep in touch? I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do believe that as a society we will find a happy medium.
  

Ecstatic? Thrilled? How To Tell the Media You're Happy, When Others Are Still Suffering

Zimmerman attorney Mark O'Mara reacts to verdict. (Source: mediaite.com/cnn.com)

While people debate whether justice was carried out in the George Zimmerman trial, I am still trying to get my head around the reaction of his lawyer, Mark O'Mara, to the verdict. I am not talking about his claim that that the media did a poor job covering the case. Most PR professionals know you should never criticize the media unless they made a serious error which you need to correct. (At best, blasting reporters will damage your relationship with them in the future; at worst, it will cause them to investigate how you do your job.)

But the issue that bothered me was how O'Mara said he was "ecstatic" with the verdict. He didn't look ecstatic, and it doesn't seem like the appropriate emotion to express. After all, at the end of the day, his client did kill Trayvon Martin. What would have been a better word to use? Reporters and publicists often face this question as they try to describe a reaction to controversial news that involved another's suffering. Thrilled? No, that is way to happy, and sometimes can sound sarcastic. Pleased? That is always a safe bet, but doesn't express much emotion. Maybe saying he had mixed emotions? Something like: "We are pleased that our client was acquitted, but we also know that this decision may hurt many who loved or identified with Trayvon Martin. We just ask that we leave George Zimmerman alone as he tries to move on as best he can, and as a country, work together to heal our wounds and help prevent future tragedies."

What do you think about that kind of response? Ecstatic? Thrilled? Disappointed? Please share your thoughts.

If It's a Need, It Leads: Why Local News is Reporting Less Crime and More Traffic/Weather

 
When I was living in the Upper West Side of Manhattan, I found a local blog that was a great way to stay informed about the neighborhood. The blog, MyUpperWest.com, featured stories on new restaurants and stores, on movies being filmed in the neighborhood, and on free or inexpensive events on the weekends. Quite simply, it was news that people could use to make decisions about how to spend their time and money in their community.

Sites like MyUpperWest represent a shift from the local news of the past few decades. Acording to a recent study by the Pew Research Center, local TV news shows are spending less time on crime stories, and more time on traffic and weather. In my view, the reason is clear and simple: people want news they can use. Maybe it's the endless stream of crime shows on TV, or the reality of living with the constant threat of terrorism? Or maybe it's the economy, which has left many people both un- and under-employed and worried about their financial futures?  Either way, local TV news seems to be getting the picture: people are less fascinated by violence, and more intrigued by how to enjoy life on tight budgets. The old mantra -- if it bleeds, it leads -- has been replaced with -- if it's a need, it leads.

Now that I moved to Forest Hills, I have been picking up the local newspapers and reading them on a regular basis to learn about my neighborhood. And if I find anything like MyUpperWest.com, or hear about a major traffic jam on the Grand Central, I will be sure to let you know.

Three Questions to Improve Post-Game Interviews

Most of the time, there is nothing more boring than a post-game interview with an athlete. How do you feel about the victory? What was your key to winning? What was going through your mind when you were on the brink of defeat? Of those, the last question is probably the most interesting. But the answers are usually just cliches: "I just dug deep and took it one play at a time." "I just gave it 110 percent." "We left it all on the field." And the list goes on...just check out the Sports Cliche List.

So what's the solution? Do your homework before the interview and ask specific questions that might teach us something about the player as a person and an athlete. For instance:

1. It was obvious that your quickness has increased and become a much more prevalent part of your game. How did you do it? A new diet? A new workout? 
2. At one point you looked like you were going to lose the game. How did you mentally keep yourself in the game when you were feeling down? Do you think of family or happy places? Do you tell yourself it's only a game?  
3. Your victory has no doubt inspired many kids who want to achieve like you. What advice would you give kids who want to be an athlete like you? Spend more time in the gym? Play a lot of different sports or just focus on one?

What do you think? What questions would you ask?