Subjectivity in the arts is one thing — I exhausted that subject in an earlier posting — but these ongoing, sharp divisions of personal opinions about our U.S. government are incredible to behold.

      Every newsworthy development produces radically different reactions, depending on one’s established political bent: liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc.  

     Just look at the comment section below any New York Times op-ed column on a controversial subject. Or read any one of dozens of websites devoted to one side or the other.

     While most NYT pieces draw a predominantly liberal response (representing what I assume is the largest faction among NYT readers), there also is normally a healthy dose of radically opposing views. Not just disagreements, mind you, but wholesale “you’re nuts” responses.

     Disagreements are to be expected and healthy and a long-standing tradition in our democracy, but the extreme differences in how the same set of facts or opinions are received these days really does seem a modern-day situation.

     I have been drawn into this vortex — firing off letters to the editor, posting comments on news articles, getting angry at conservative news outlets or comments in the media, promoting my views on Facebook (which I only really joined to promote my book), even keeping those with differing views at arm’s length, for fear of getting into an argument  — and I don’t know a way out.

     Judging from what I see or read or hear, though, I am not nearly as over-the-top as millions of my fellow Americans. Scary. We are in a hate-war that splits our country just about in half.

     I trace the origins of this toxic self-righteousness to the arrival of radio personality Rush Limbaugh in the late 1980s.

     I can remember listening to his show and, while disagreeing with just about everything he said, finding it amusing and informative about what a small segment of our population was thinking. As a journalist, I was used to at least paying attention to opinions from all segments of society, giving them their due and respect.

     At first, Limbaugh himself would profess to only being an entertainer. He would state views in wildly exaggerated, inflammatory, agitating diatribes — hoping to get a rise out of his listeners, either for or against him.

     Unfortunately, millions of people were taking him quite seriously, word-for-word. They were inflamed and agitated, all right. They were deep-down appalled at the “facts” he was exposing. And if his rants were not true, they reasoned, how was he staying on the air?

     Well, of course, his extreme talk was selling, and money talks. No opposing force existed yet that could match him or challenge his information.

     Soon, a rash of other right-wing commentators saw the potential riches. Like Limbaugh, they were full of distortions and extremist, outrageous commentary, with no pretense of being fair or balanced.

     And that, in turn, begat similar left-wing alternatives.

     At the same time, Limbaugh apparently began enjoying his immense, slavishly loyal following. He became a power to be reckoned with and he played it to the hilt, only bringing out the “I’m just an entertainer” cover when his most outrageous comments brought him mockery and put heat on his advertisers.

     Soon, with presidential elections stoking the fire and raising the stakes, the war of words became intense in the 1990s. Positions hardened. Hate festered. Winning on an issue or winning an election became more important than solving a problem through the time-honored art of compromise.

     But, going back, it should be understood that the liberal left, by its very nature, actually was slow to embrace this approach to entertaining/stiffening base supporters.   

     Being a “liberal” means … well, being liberal, as defined in my dictionary: “Tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broadminded, open-minded, enlightened, permissive, free, free and easy, easygoing, libertarian, indulgent, lenient.”

     The same dictionary defines “conservative” as “traditionalist, traditional, conventional, orthodox, old-fashioned, dyed-in-the-wool, hidebound, unadventurous, set in one’s ways; moderate, middle-of-the-road, buttoned-down; informal, stick-in-the-mud.”

     Obviously, liberals are more likely to consider viewpoints other than their own while conservatives are more likely to tell you “my way or the highway.”

     But when the right-wing fringe, led by Limbaugh, got nuttier and nuttier, putting out some outright falsehoods, the liberal left (thank God) created its own radio and TV shows to fight back.

     The downside of this development, though, was that liberals often were forced to be as extremist and rigid as their ideological foes. Being tolerant and open to opposing views may have been their natural reaction but that attitude would only empower the rightwing, which is not open to compromise and perceives openness as weakness, an opportunity to take control.

     Thus, we got conservative liberals, being close-minded in their progressive stances as the only practical means of fighting off the wacko, fact-challenged GOP extremists and maintaining enough political power to protect society from them.

     And, in that, they have been pretty successful.

     U.S. voters, a mostly moderate bunch, have seen the Republicans for what they are and given the Democratic presidential candidate majority support in five of the last six general elections.

     Over the last two decades, despite all the incredible blather from rightwing radio and TV hosts and their followers, only a GOP candidate running as a wartime president has been able to win the popular vote.

     But what has been lost in all this is good sense in governing the United States of America.

     Every issue is given a liberal or conservative spin — a Democratic or Republican slant — and each side plays to the extremist base through the narrow focus of their media allies (like Fox News on the right, MSNBC on the left).

     In the political arena, we as a people have lost tolerance for our vast differences. Strangely, though, outside of that, we seem to be okay with our rich individuality.

     I mean, just look at our entertainment offerings or our vehicle preferences.

     TV shows, movies or books can inspire intense love and intense hate. Some people think a small “smart car” is a thing of beauty while others want a gas-guzzling Humvee or Land Rover. Many people love their pickup trucks. Many are committed to their Jeep or Subaru.

     Yes, we may passionately defend our choices, but are we offended by or bitter toward those with differing tastes? No, nearly everyone seems smilingly tolerant of them. “There’s no accounting for taste,” we say.

     But let someone say background checks are needed for all gun sales, and millions of people grit their teeth and panic that there’s movement afoot — a vast conspiracy — to deprive them of a Constitutional right to  ”bear arms.”

      No compromise, no tolerance for an opposing view. Just a lot of anger and fear and branding of the opposition as un-American, socialist or bearing some other hidden agenda to hurt them.

      And then defenders of gun control respond with equal vitriol. 

      Leaders and media commentators see this paranoia/fear/anger and feed it. It’s a no-lose situation for politicians or hosts of radio/TV shows. No proof necessary, just wild allegations are enough. People will listen and believe the worst.

      Now, I have to show my bias here and say that I HAVE found that liberal commentators I’ve listened to or watched — like Randi Rhodes, Rachel Maddow, Stephanie Miller, Chris Matthews or Al Franken (before he was elected senator) — are loaded with facts and able to support their extreme positions. Of course, I haven’t listened to their right-wing counterparts enough to say they are always inaccurate but I have seen or heard enough to know they often are dangerously wrong.

      Regardless, where does this leave all of us?

      A polarized nation, at least on matters of governance. And so what? So the progressive ideas I think would be best for our country will never come to pass. So the regressive notions of millions of others also will be blunted.

     We can always just say, “Life goes on,” at least until the most extreme nutcases get frustrated, upset, armed and ready to kill people.

      Would political compromise stop such acts? That would be a stretch, really. But would it combat global warming? Would it halt the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer people? Would it at least make for a productive Congress? Gotta say yes.   

      As I stated at the outset, I have no answers. The pessimist side of me says it may take decades for the divisions to heal, probably starting a few years after Limbaugh and his ilk retire or pass away.

      The younger generation is showing signs of being more tolerant of differences in race, gender, sexual preference, etc., and could rebel against the closed-mindedness of their elders by trying to get along.

      I hope someone will put a rose beside my gravestone when it happens.

     Spurred by several recent developments, debates are raging across the United States about racism and sexism.

     The year: 1967?

      No.

      It’s spring 2013.

     Can these same issues — people decrying male chauvinism, racial discrimination at polling places, female bias in the workplace and lack of advancement opportunities for women in business — really still be prominent decades after being aggressively fought in the 1960s?

      As someone who actively worked to raise social conscienceness on such matters back in the day, it saddens me that the answer is a definite yes.

      We have crass sexist humor at the Academy Awards, allegations before the U.S. Supreme Court of prevailing racist policies at polling places across many states, a book by a prominent businesswoman seeking to guide fellow females on how to achieve success and a new policy by a major corporation that brings workers (mostly women) back into the office from home, where young mothers (and, increasingly, young fathers) had been gaining a semblance of equality in the business world by being able to effectively fulfill work and parenting responsibilities.

       I certainly don’t want to enter the fray in these matters. That would take about 20 bloggings. My point is just: Race and gender equality have sadly remained issues long after they should have been become accepted facts of U.S. life.

       All the marches, all the protests, all the books, all the news articles, all the individual stands at workplaces or universities, all the consciousness-raising nationwide … more than four decades of effort.  

        And still, we’ve got bias or discrimination on the basis of an individual’s race or gender

      “It sucks to get old,” an elected official once remarked to me as I complained about some ache or pain I was experiencing. I was still in my early 50s and it was the first of many times I would hear that phrase — either in my own head or out of some fellow geezer’s mouth — as my life creaked into middle age.

      Looking back, though, I see that the first real sting of aging had come  many years earlier, in my mind, as it became apparent the high ideals of my youth were not being realized in either my professional or personal life.

      The conservative “women should just be women and let men be men” strain in American life — championed by one Phyllis Shafely in the 1970s as a counter-movement to “women’s liberation” or feminism — has remained strong. 

      That beyond-sluggish liberation was summarized by Time magazine’s profile, written by Belinda Luscombe, of the modern-day version of a women’s rights champion, Sheryl Sandberg — a billionaire executive at Facebook who took on the issue in her new book, “Lean In” and stirred the whole debate anew:

   “Why, almost exactly 44 years after Lorena Weeks became the first woman to use the Civil Rights Act to win the right to be promoted, at Southern Bell, are we still arguing about women and success? Only flat-earthers and small boys don’t believe that women can lead huge Western democracies (thanks, Margaret Thatcher), head companies (thanks, Indra Nooyi), play exciting sports (thanks, Billie Jean King), rise to the rank of four-star general (thanks, Ann Dunwoody), change the world, trade cattle futures and be funny (thanks for all three, Hillary Clinton).

“But women’s journey to the top is having an altitude problem. Young female executives begin on the same career staircase as men, but it’s almost as if the stairs change direction, Hogwarts-like, and take them somewhere else. For three decades, more women than men have graduated from college, but that academic dominance has not led to corresponding business or political success. There are currently only 17 heads of state out of 195 who do not have a Y chromosome. Women hold about 20% of all seats in parliaments globally. Slightly more than 4% of Fortune 500 companies are headed by women, and women hold 17% of board seats. Worse, these numbers aren’t changing very fast. Ten years ago, 14% of board seats were held by women. A decade has passed, and women have gotten a few inches farther into the boardroom. “Women are not making it to the top of any profession in the world,” says Sandberg. “But when I say the blunt truth is that men run the world, people say, ‘Really?’ That, to me, is the problem.”

“Few people disagree that somewhere on the climb between the graduation podium and the C-suite, women are getting lost. The contentious issue is what—or who—is keeping them down. Fingers are pointed in every direction: the U.S. has primitive maternity-leave laws on par with those of Papua New Guinea—a country that still has actual cannibals. Women are hitting their childbearing deadlines around the time future executives are being winnowed out from regular management. Turnover at corporate boards, which are heavily male-dominated, is very slow; most have a mandatory retirement age of 72. American companies structure their workers’ days around the expectation that someone else is handling the home front. Men have welcomed women into the workplace, but housework, cooking and child-rearing duties are still borne largely by women.

“Sandberg acknowledges all these obstacles but drills down on one in particular, the one she says receives the least attention: the invisible barrier in women’s minds. ‘Compared to our male colleagues, fewer of us aspire to senior positions,’ she writes. It’s not exactly that they’re to blame, she notes. Females are raised from birth to have different expectations. There’s an ambition gap, and it’s wreaking havoc on women’s ability to advance. ‘My argument is that getting rid of these internal barriers is critical to gaining power. We can dismantle the hurdles in ourselves today. We can start this very moment.’

“Do women want that kind of power? Are men hardwired to want the big paycheck, the high-horsepower career more? How much of women’s tendency to lean back stems from something deep in the DNA?”

     Time goes on to analyze that aspect of the issue, one that’s been troubling me since my starry-eyed hippie youth.

       Same for racism and homophobia. Are human beings “hardwired” to distrust or irrationally fear those who are not exactly like them?

     It’s tough to even consider the answer could be yes. But, stripping away the naiveté and idealism of my youth and replacing it with the cynicism and realism of geezerhood, that’s my conclusion.

     How else to explain the persistent bias in generation after generation despite the stark proof of equality among human beings regardless of sex, race, religious choice, sexual preference, appearance, monetary success or any other surface difference?

      Accepting that truth for starry-eyed 60s idealists like myself — the boomer, hippie-type, war-protesting, pot-popularizing kids — was difficult. We were convinced that education and the passage of time would bring about equality for all. Even now, it surprises me when news items like “Lean In,” racist voting laws, sexist comedy skits or anti-gay statements appear.

      For sexism, I’ve had to acknowledge that the ancient, narrow roles assigned males and females in society are powerfully attractive to a majority of people. And, given that, I have to be impressed by the the many advancements in that area —like stay-at-home dads, removal of sexist language and inclusion of women in the military, police forces and fire departments.

     While many instances of questionable male dominance remain, as noted by the Time article, we equal-rights-loving ex-hippies have to wrap our heads around the “hard-wired” theory — that this is by choice, this desire of the women who Sandberg sees opting to lean out.

      As a young man, I never would have thought that, given the opportunity, someone would choose not to pursue the most advanced level possible in one’s chosen career.   

      Likewise, it’s been difficult to see that a lot the stuff many saw as simply societally ingrained sexism — like choice of childhood playthings (trucks for boys, dolls for girls), facial makeup, aggressive playground behavior or fixations on clothing, shopping and hair style — just may be gender related.

      The hair obsession among women has been a particular eye-opener for me.

       I laid a lot of the blame on the generation-to-generation Barbie doll fascination that is part of many mother-daughter relationships. But it must go well beyond that, judging from this lingering obsession despite flagging Barbie interest.

      This hair craziness really hit me while watching episodes of the TV show “What Not to Wear” on TLC. (This was a guilty pleasure of years past; early seasons of the program had some interesting and amusing parts, with touching family receptions to the makeovers, but it has became crass, cruel, snarky and gimmicky in recent seasons.)

       A constant on the early shows was the interest of hair stylist Nick Arrojo in chopping a few inches off the women’s hair, not to mention changing its color and style.  

      In show after show, the haircut was met with tears and strong protests from the participants. Some vowed to return to their former length. Some singled out the haircut as the only drawback of their experience.

       This strong attachment to hair, in particular its length, was a revelation to me. From my perspective, it seemed borderline nutty, a very sad result of the whole Barbie-doll thing. But I must be the cuckoo one, I realized in expanding my observations to celebrities, magazines and simply the people I encounter everyday.

       Given the clear choice presented by “women’s liberation” — to just revel in their natural beauty and not be dominated by the financial interests of major cosmetics or clothing companies — women have chosen to continue redesigning their faces, playing with their hair and shopping until they’re dropping.

      (The popular Broadway disaster “Legally Blonde” gave this strange spin to the “liberation” movement, proudly proclaiming a woman can love all the mindless, expensive excursions into appearance, shopping and overall man-chasing and still be brilliant. Uh, did someone actually question that? Being vain and stereotypically “female” has never been considered dumb, just sad and limiting, if imposed (as behavior expected of women) on those who’d rather not be that way.) 

      A stark example of this non-liberation is the billion-dollar hair extension and wig business for African-American women. Comedian Chris Rock explored this incredible phenomenon in his 2009 movie “Good Hair.” There is no greater example of societal, commercial influences trumping good sense.

     Returning to my central point, it’s the fact that such fear of natural looks prevails in 2013 that amazes me. It seemed that the movement against artificial appearance (lipstick, hair coloring, eye-liner, push-up bras, etc.) was moving full-speed ahead in the United States of the 60s. I such had high hopes.

     What derailed it? I guess a lot of things (as Time noted), and a proper analysis would probably get into the whole “nature versus nurture” debate on how humans become who they are.

      Regardless, I just feel now that my participation in the fight is about over. You win, corporate America. I’ll just be little ole natural, equal-rights me and let the rest of the men and women struggle with their sexual, racial or other stereotypes.

       I may write about it from time to time, like this. I may make my views known in the voting booth, choosing candidates who promise to fight the “ism’s” as much as possible.

       But I must accept that this is 2013 and I am now 60, not 20.  My fights of years ago are so Sixties. They have yet to be won and I have to question now that they every will be (or should be?).

      Yes, I accept the whole “sucks to get old” mantra, even adapting to the fact we all can now use the word “suck” in casual conversation. (Does anyone remember when it was a sexual term of the risqué variety?) 

      But be aware: Somewhere in an old cigar box, at the back of my dresser drawer, lays a silver bracelet with a front section shaped into the initials ERA.

      That stands for “Equal Rights Amendment,” the dashed political dream of the 70’s women’s liberation movement. (It passed both houses of the U.S. Congress but, according to Wikipedia, “failed to receive the requisite number of ratifications before the final deadline mandated by Congress of June 30, 1982 expired, and so it was not adopted, largely because Phyllis Schlafly mobilized conservatives to oppose the ERA.”)

      The bracelets were handed out to members of the National Organization for Women (NOW) with the intent they would be worn until the constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights for all, regardless of gender, was passed.

      I was given bracelet as a charter member of the Upper East Tennessee Chapter of NOW (and its only male member). I was working as a news reporter for the Kingsport Times-News at the time.

     I have kept the bracelet all these years, mostly because I’m a minor hoarder.

      But it has come to mean to me that the dream never dies.

(The ultimate inspirational photo, lifted from the Sunrise Properties of Texas website.)

    “On the bright side …”

      Those are not words I speak often. Putting a positive spin on day-to-day downturns is not my forte. I tend to dwell on the negative and, as I pointed out in my Sept. 27 post, angst over that as well.

      On top of that, I believe in facing reality, dealing with the facts, looking at lemons for the lemons they are. That’s how problems are solved rather than avoided (and made worse).

      But, eventually, I do fall in line and start making lemonade, i.e. converting the bad times into hopeful, progressive recoveries. As we all know, it’s the only way to continue. Life goes on.   

       Just look at Newtown parents coping with the devastating loss of their children or military veterans dealing with the loss of limbs. They push forward, incredibly finding — or making — something good from circumstances that many of us cannot fathom having to go through.

       Still, for me, applying that approach to everyday life seems to border on denial and rationalization. You have to be careful not to be an eternal optimist and risk being eternally disappointed.    

      That said, I want to devote this piece to some mind-bending positivity. Sort of a “Bright Side Playbook,” my humble version of the search for good things in bad situations that’s at the center of the current hit movie “Silver Linings Playbook” (or, going back 60 years, the popular Irving Berlin song, “Count Your Blessings (Instead of Sheep).”)

      This is February, after all, the time when depression peaks for many in mid-winter, sun-challenged areas like Central New York. I am among that “many.” So I know we can all use some good vibes, even if they are openly contrived.

      So without further justification, I’ll give this “bright side” thing a try.

     Wait. I’m thinking. Give me a moment. I’m new at this.

      Okay, how do people usually do this? Right — they start with their health.

     “At least I have my health,” they say. Well, mine is a little shaky, but I will say I do not appear to have anything serious, and certainly there are millions of other people who really do. So is that a positive? I’ll take it.

      Next there is family. Mine, like all others, is going through some typical highs and lows at this time but, again, we are all doing pretty darn well, by just about all standards. We should be ashamed to complain, although our problems are real and need to be dealt with.  

       So, overall I have to say the family part is a definite, bright, shinning side. I won’t publicly embarrass them with details. But I do “count my blessings” on a regular basis.

      Moving on, we certainly cannot mention the weather (awful and mostly cloudy here) as a positive but “on the bright side” we should be thankful for its lack of severity so far in our area. Two major snow storms by mid-February? That’s a recipe for supreme happiness in Central New York.

     Whoa. That was a tough spin for me. Time for a breather.

     Okay, I’m back now. I want to stay positive here. But I also have that nagging honesty thing so I have to leave out politics.

      Well, we were blessed to have President Obama re-elected, given the dire alternative, but out country still is stuck with an overload of other-worldly, paranoid, hateful, right-wing individuals who spew crazy talk at every juncture, so it’s too hard for me to see something bright there.

      In fact, just thinking about those crazy people makes me want to abandon the whole “bright side” thing, but I won’t.

       And this particular brightness award goes to: The American people, as a whole, and our incredible country.

       Despite the full-out right-wing assault on rational thought (“be afraid, be very afraid”), progressive efforts, democracy (see: attempts to discourage voting by Democratic-leaning constituencies) and intelligence itself, the U.S. voters have gone for the Democratic presidential nominee in five of the last six elections. Only a Republican running as a wartime president — an unnecessary war that he created — has been able to win the popular vote over the last two decades.

    It was television phenomenon Oprah Winfrey who put it best, when asked what she thought about the chances of Sarah Palin being elected (after she interviewed the witless, grossly unprepared vice presidential candidate in 2008). Winfrey said words to the effect, “I just have faith the American people will make the right decision.” And they did.   

      So there’s a big “bright side” to a potentially very dark situation. In fact, I believe Oprah and her cohorts, at their peak, were the queens and kings of positivity. They may be the extreme I’m trying to avoid but it’s good they’re around.

      Now, having dealt with health, family, weather and politics, what other things need a good ole upbeat spin?

     Finances? A little too personal a topic but I’ll just say I start out on the positive side of this one; my material comforts are good right now. Any complaints would be in degrees (wouldn’t it be great to win the lottery so I can buy a Lexus and afford my own private plane?) and pretty silly, given all I have. 

      That should just about do it.

       My complaint blogs are a lot longer but maybe that’s just one more bright spot for consideration: Being positive takes less time and space.

(Bright side at dawn, or sunset, by Mark Schulz.)    

     (A book cover from one of the hundreds of books devoted to the Beatles)

     Not to belabor a point but … thinking some more about that last post, I can see my differences with rabid entertainment critics/fans may stem from the divergent ways we approach life in two basic areas: passion and community.

     And I have a new Beatles CD collection that illustrates my point.

    To begin: My attraction to particular individuals or offerings in pop culture (songs, performances, sports, TV shows, movies, etc.) can be strong but never reaches the level of passion that consumes countless individuals (as evidenced by fan clubs, websites, fan letters, public displays like body-painting or concert sing-alongs, screaming and cheering at performances or shows, social media postings, stalking reports, sports teams’ clothing and memorabilia sales, and other obsessive displays of affection).

     On top of that, I have very little desire to publicly proclaim and share my love for the objects of my attraction with the community at large (at least past the very simple Facebook “like” thing I’ve clicked a few times in recent months).

      Such a craving apparently drives many people, perhaps in hopes it will link them to the individuals or things they so passionately love.  

     This latter difference is pretty fundamental. A lot of people — maybe even most — function better as part of communities of like-minded folks. They attend churches or clubs or bars or social/family functions or even simply online chat rooms to share their experiences. Their feelings do not seem complete until they are expressed and mixed with those of others.

     Me? I guess you’d say I’m a loner, whether by accident or design. I am not a joiner and have no close friends outside of family. I do enjoy people and socializing — up to a point. But I certainly do not form my preferences in entertainment based on what others will think or do. They simply come from the gut, although I follow a variety of media outlets for news and general guidance.   

      And I feel no rush to gush my feelings to others, although I do not hesitate to talk about them in casual conversations with family or acquaintances.

     An observation I repeat often to my family is that no matter how strongly you feel about something — a singer, a political cause, a product, a trend, a movie, whatever — you can bet someone feels far stronger, exhibiting a devotion that borders on (or amounts to) obsession. Often, those “someones” actually number in the thousands.

     This became apparent to me a while back when I searched the internet for information on a particular actress whom I admired. Lo and behold, there were several websites devoted to her, including a timeline of photos throughout her career and a few snapshots of her naked (from her movies). Yikes.

     I tried another actress, one with roles in several relatively minor films and … same thing. Whoa.

      Then, I heard a Supreme Court news reporter on an NPR radio program, thought she sounded very bright and searched for information about her (so I could follow her sharp insights into the SCOTUS). More yikes and whoas — websites stalking her every move, including entries bemoaning her marriage and pregnancy.  

    After that, I began paying close attention to this “I like/others worship” phenomenon. I’ve never seen it fail.

     Particularly with the advent of Facebook and Twitter, evidence abounds that large segments of my fellow human planetary occupants closely attach themselves to the objects of their fancy.

     In turn, many of these objects encourage such devotion, for ego and monetary reasons, until it crosses a line into sickness or stalking. Of course, others shun the obsessive attention as it crowds their personal space, inhibits their family life or affects their creative pursuits.

   No matter. It exists on a wide scale, and by not sharing in that world it is difficult for me to relate to critical reactions that confuse personal taste with quality of product (you know, the point I was trying to make in my last post).

    Likewise, by not being a social kind of guy, I am perhaps too quickly annoyed by the attention people give their entertainment favorites. Where I see an excess of public praise and lifting of status (from being merely a personal favorite to being truly great), others simply see a natural sharing of excitement in the various media (established or social).

     Recently, though, I came as close as I’ll ever come to being a little obsessive toward a favorite entertainment offering: I put together a rare collection of Beatles’ remastered CDs, combining the best of the mono and stereo recordings that became available a few years ago.

      Now, this was extravagant for me, but, of course, it is far from the Beatle worship that exists for thousands of people out there.

     Still, I’m not comfortable admitting I did this.

     Even my adult fascination with all things Beatles — not just their music — is embarrassing. But it’s also understandable, in a rationalizing way.

    The group’s arrival on the 60s music scene changed everything for my generation, and they were legitimately great.

     The four youths had played together for years. They had a deep appreciation for music and were a rare coming together of talent, good looks, personality, freshness and innate music and culture smarts.

     When you throw in great timing, as far as the culture scene goes, the result had to be Beatlemania.

      This was not a product of media manipulation or trickery, like so many of today’s pop acts. But they were given obsessive media attention, and we (my fellow teens) ate it up. They became our youth.

     As a result, as geezers, we remain fascinated by their continuing stories. Every Christmas, there are more books, newly discovered photos, new takes on old stories or songs. They are a staple of holiday offerings as much as ones about the late Princess Diana and Elvis Presley.

     I have read at least three big fat books on the Beatles along with ones by two former wives (Cynthia Lennon and Patti Harrison) and contemporaries like Eric Clapton and the Beach Boys.

     I have two books analyzing every single song they ever sang.

     Most importantly, many of their songs have stood the test of time. Their early musical creations are especially admirable, although they have been lampooned as a tad simple-minded by some, most notably the British parody group, Rutles. (See previous post on subjectivity; it rules taste.)

     The remastering project – cleaning up and upgrading the original recordings — promised to make the Beatles sound fresh and full again to geezer ears.         

     Yet, when the remastered CDs finally came out two years ago, only the biggest fanatics jumped. As you may have guessed by now, I was not among them.

     The quality of the new productions drew rapturous praise and made me long to hear them (especially after a few were played on SeriusXM radio). But the price was $300 for the mono versions (even with the absence of three of the later classic albums) and $200 for the stereo versions.

     Ouch. Too much for a simple fan like me. And there was a debate on which were the best versions. Besides, who has the time to sit down and listen to a bunch of old Beatles CDs? I guess just those over-the-top types I described up above.

      Then I noticed last fall that the price for the limited-edition mono box set had been halved at Barnes & Noble. I put it on my Christmas wish list and the family got together to grant it.

     It looks great and the few tracks I tried sound great, but the whole mono vs. stereo debate still nagged my odd mind. Was I getting the optimum recordings?

    Soon, I came across an excellent analysis of the whole situation by an NPR music critic. He had listened to all of the songs in both mono and stereo and prepared an educated recommendation of which was best.

    I followed his advice and augmented my collection with the applicable stereo CDs, taking advantage of on-line deals, specials (buy two CDs, get one free at B&N) and a gift card. Total cost; $240, half what the two box sets originally cost.

    That makes this a pretty rare compilation, I believe, and I hope to devote a few nights to listening to all the CDs in future months, following along with the books with backgrounds on each song.

    With that, I will be coming as close as I’ve ever come to being a  passionate fan. But I know that designation really only should be applied to those who immediately bought the original CD boxsets for $500, or perhaps even tracked down the original recordings themselves many years ago and listened to them on state-of-the-art equipment.

      I’m certain, from what I’ve read, there are many Beatles fans who are intimately familiar with every note written and performed by the group, both in a recording studio and live, both as a group and as individuals before and after their official break-up, both as part of the Beatles and with other musicians, and both as the Beatles and their former incarnations (as captured on the various Anthology recordings).

    They have seen all the pictures and all the books. They have seen all the videos, maybe even own a few.

   To them, I remain an amateur, hardly registering on the passion scale.

     To me, they remain obsessive, in the red “danger” zone on the passion scale. But part of me envies their passion. People who become experts in any endeavor should really be admired, if they are able to keep their interests in perspective and to themselves.

   But, to again belabor my point, the only problem comes when these obsessions are pushed on the non-passionate and made to appear as something more than personal taste, individual desire or glorified hobbies.    

     A lot of people — millions, in fact — are going nuts with love for the PBS drama “Downton Abbey.”

      Likewise, millions idolize rocker Bruce Springsteen and his E Street Band, to the point many are borderline stalkers. They attend every concert that they can physically manage to get to.     

     Similar devotion has been inspired by the Harry Potter novels, the Hobbit books and movies, country music, the TV show “Lost” and the rock group Rolling Stones.

      And here’s another common thread connecting all of these: I cannot for the life of me understand the wild attraction for any of them.

       It’s not that I don’t join in some wild fascinations for pop culture offerings: the Beatles, the TV shows “The Wire” and “The Sopranos,” the blessed commercial-free SeriusXM radio, college football, the Beach Boys.

      I just have a problem when these oh-so-very-subjective adorations are rammed down my throat as absolutely incredible, classic must-sees by critics and devotees.

       It’s certainly okay to be moved, inspired, thrilled — whatever — by a movie, a play, a song, a TV show, a painting, a concert — really, anything.  It’s also okay to have the opposite reaction.

     And I have no issue with spreading the word about some offering that you’ve found particularly good or bad. I’ve found a lot of great things (and avoided many) from the suggestions of others. 

      But this smitteness (or hatred) crosses a line when it consumes Twitter, Facebook, conversations or publications with a fervor or frequency that suggests the object of devotion is something truly extraordinary, when, in actuality, it simply is something this one individual really, really likes.   

     It’s a fairly thick line, too, not one that is hard to see or avoid.

     Most of us common folk, with normal everyday likes and dislikes, understand there is no accounting for taste. It’s a big, wide, wonderful world, full of choices — in entertainment, people, occupations, socialization, appearance, food, lifestyle, blogs, politics .  .  . you name it.

     In a recent issue of Entertainment Weekly, a letter writer said she “hated” the movie “Silver Lining Playbook,” which many people (myself included) have found simply wonderful. Another writer said she loves the TV show “Smash,” as opposed to the many people (myself included) who thought it was a rock-bottom time-waster in its first season (see my March 23 blog post).      

     So many factors come into such choices or attractions, like timing and personal background, that even the same person could like something one day and question his or her decision the next. 

     We — the average person — may wish to share our rapture with friends, family or online chat rooms, but we don’t expect any rush to join us and don’t judge those who don’t. Likewise, we resent it when anyone imposes his or her tastes on us.

    We understand subjectivity. 

     One personal example: Bernadette Peters’ rendition of “Not A Day Goes By” at a long-ago Stephen Sondheim tribute concert brings tears to my eyes. Even just hearing the opening strains of the song can make my eyes well up. The roar of cheers from the audience after the performance would indicate lots of people found the performance similarly astounding.

     But I see no need to try and promote this reaction to a wider audience, treating this very personal connection to a song as something grander, worthy of “classic” status that all should experience. I just love it, that’s all.   

    To suggest that one’s unabashed passion for a particular song, TV show, rock group, movie or whatever somehow lifts it to “iconic” (hate the word) or legendary status is narcissistic and an imposition.

    Yet that’s what we often get: A drumbeat of media love for particular offerings — like, recently, “Downton Abbey,” “Homeland” or the comedian Louie CK — in print, on radio, on TV, online, on Twitter and elsewhere that makes it sound like anyone missing these things has a hole in their lives and should be ashamed or embarrassed. (Note: I do enjoy “Homeland” and can tolerate Louie C.K; I’ve never watched “Downton Abbey” and don’t plan to, but at least three members of my immediate family love it.)

     In addition to the conceit involved, a couple of other things bother me.

     For one, many of the TV shows gaining great praise of late in the media are on subscription channels like HBO (“Game of Thrones,” “Boardwalk Empire,” “Girls,” “Enlightened”) or Showtime (“Homeland, “Dexter,” “Episodes,” “Weeds”).

      According to the last figures I saw, the majority of U.S. residents with televisions do not have HBO or Showtime. These are pretty expensive add-ons and offer very little, on a day-to-day basis, for the average viewer.

     But I assume the media critics have their subscriptions paid for by their bosses, so they just conclude the HBO or Showtime programs are among the many that viewers can access, if they choose.  However, the critics should take into account (no pun intended) the limited availability of these shows when approaching their review priorities. 

     In other words, even if the subscription channel programs are the best being produced on TV (outside “Mad Men,” “Breaking Bad” or Downton Abbey”), they should not be touted over and over by media critics whose audience largely cannot afford to see them. There should be a separate reviewing section for such programs, clearly noting they are an acquired (as in money) taste. 

       And, while no entertainment offering is worth lavish attention, these shows in particular should not be gushed over, ad nauseum, if so many people cannot even see them.

      A second major gripe with the loud media chants for entertainment offerings is that critics seem to assume viewers have this 24-7 leisure time to take in all these wonderful TV shows, movies, books, box sets, sporting events, video games, YouTube videos, website chats, program-by-program analyses, Facebook postings, etc.

       The truth is that we all select a few things that we find enjoyable and spend most of our time doing productive things, like work and hobbies and home maintenance and socializing and family interaction and keeping up with the news and sports via newspapers, magazines, websites and TV.

      Consider this:

      My wife and I started this year trying to build our collection of Blu-ray discs for favorite movies, seeing that this technology still appears to have a one or two years left before being replaced by the next “latest and greatest” way of watching videos in our homes.  

      We purchased the “Chinatown” disc, which features a host of fascinating extras (for big fans of the classic movie like us). Just watching the movie and two of the extras covered about four hours of hour holiday relaxation time. We could spend a week watching the disc every night before finishing all it has to offer.

     Meanwhile, we bought the special 50^th anniversary Blu-ray box set of “West Side Story” on sale a few weeks ago and it remains in the package, awaiting time to take it all in.

     (And while we were watching “Chinatown,” just about every magazine, talk show, newspaper art section and tweet was consumed with the second season of “Homeland” on Showtime, full of spoilers and implications that you were a backwoods hillbilly if you were missing this incredible show.)

      Now who has that kind of time? I mean, even as a retiree, I’ve usually got two books going, one on my tablet and one hard copy. I read two newspapers a day and five magazines a week.

     In the evening, I enjoy listening to Pandora or the music I’ve put on my iPod and SeriusXM radio. I also may take in the latest on CNN or MSNBC.

      Outside of my current world, consider that parents with young children nearly always have an activity on weekends and many weekday nights (like sports or music practices).

      So, then, am I that far out of touch to suggest that in most lives there really is just time for one or two of your standard comedy or drama TV shows a week, max? With the coming explosion of entertainment via YouTube channels, will we even be looking at that much traditional fare?

        When you consider this plethora of entertainment options together with the limited access to praiseworthy shows on HBO and Showtime, my lead issue — the subjective salivating over entertainment fare by critics — becomes even more obviously problematic.

       Critics’ opinions are just that, and they are much less valuable than they may think. Their lack of perspective on this is the rub.

        In my way of thinking, a critic’s role (or that of the media the circulates them) is to sort through the never-ending onslaught of entertainment choices as a service for average consumers, making informed suggestions to ease their lives.

      But my observation is that many have lost sight of that purpose. Instead, they use their various soapboxes to proclaim excitement for their personal favorites.

      Perhaps they hope to cozy up to the entertainers or others associated with a movie or TV show or concert — simply groupies with a slightly higher purpose. Or maybe they just can’t control their gush.

     Some of the cause may be simply youth. I see a similar situation with young sports reporters, who witness or experience something exciting or incredible at an event and immediately proclaim it the “probably the best ever,” an “instant classic” or some similar extreme description.

      It takes a seasoned reporter to keep their world in perspective and recognize what is truly unique and what is just simply an amazing occurrence. 

      But, giving entertainment critics the biggest break possible, maybe they just really believe passionately in the quality of something and feel their role is to push that thing before the public in such a manner that will ensure its success (like renewal for a TV show by the network or a wide theater release of a movie). 

     In any event, consumers deserve better. “Buyer beware” does not apply here because it’s almost impossible to avoid the blares of the critical masses if one is at all connected to the information-providing or social-networking world.  

     It’s more like “critics be aware.” 

(A New Yorker cartoon by J.B. Handelsman)

          Now, if I were to prepare a “bucket list” (see December post) based solely on my love of travel, it would include things like: “seed all bare spots on lawn” or “download classic Marvin Gaye songs from iTunes.”

      In other words, it would include only things that can be done WITHOUT traveling.

      Be it airline flights or long trips by car, bus or train, nothing says excitement to me like being wrapped in a comforter, at home, on a couch in front of the TV.

      But I haven’t always been such a travel Grinch.

     In my pre-50 years, the prospect of taking a plane ride across the United Sates filled me with anticipation. Once plans were made, I counted down the days.

      I enjoyed the airports, the planes (with in-flight movies) and the arrivals in the warm California sun (or wherever, usually a vacation spot).

      My outlook was only a little less giddy for my many trips via car, bus or train. Yes, they could be tedious, but they also held promise of motel stays, family adventures, visits with friends, sight-seeing and whatever attractions we were headed out to enjoy (concerts, Broadway shows, restaurants, college visits, Yankee games, Boston University hockey games, my sons’ youth sports events).

    Now, the lure of the destinations (usually visits with family) have to be strong enough to outweigh the travails of travel to make me pack a suitcase.

     I guess I’m mainly talking about airline travel.

     For starters, taking a flight now demands a far greater time commitment. There is the need to arrive at the airport an hour or two early, to allow for the security check. Then there is the security check itself, which involves preparation, five layers of judgment (check-in, ID re-check at security, luggage check, x-ray machine and body scan), discomfort, long lines, and stripping.

      On top of that, there are:

 ** The tightly packed planes (on my recent trip to South Bend, Ind., from Syracuse, NY, two of my four planes were overbooked, as were two others in my adjacent waiting areas);

 ** The extra fees for baggage, prompting many more travelers to bring aboard huge carry-on bags and compete crazily for limited space in the overhead compartments;  

 ** The airfares themselves;

 ** The virtual absence of good in-flight meals;

 ** The rise of many smaller airline services — and their smaller planes — for shorter runs.

     All of this would be difficult to take for a young traveler. As an older one, the new circumstances make for a dreaded experience.

     Without going into TMI territory, it’s just hard for the post-55 crowd to handle all the uncomfortable situations that arise with allowing 8-10 hours for a flight of 6-7 hours, even in the smoothest of circumstances (no delays, nice fellow passengers, good health, good weather, clean airports).

       Tight airplanes, terminal waits, messy bathrooms, rude people, etc., are just harder for the growingly infirm.

      The same goes long trips on trains, buses and cars. What once were just simple inconveniences — lines, crowds, public bathrooms, delays, threats of emergencies (like those in recent years that produced extended stays in a plane on a tarmac) — now are dreads.

      Putting all this on paper right now makes it all look so silly. A blog going nowhere. A geezer idiosyncrasy.  

      But I know I am not alone. I’ve talked to enough people and read enough in various publications or online to know that travel today, at least via airlines, is a pretty universally disliked experience.

      So what do we all expect?

      For me, I would like a convenient, safe and secure ride that also takes into account personal comfort and sensitivities.

     That means clean and plentiful bathrooms, good food, pleasant personnel at all points (check-in, customer support, concessions, security, flight attendants, pilots), comfortable waiting areas, pleasant fellow passengers, attention to details (like cleanliness, in-flight entertainment, special requests), treatment of each flight as special by flight attendants and ease of security checks.

      Asking too much? Read it again. Doesn’t that seem like a pretty easy list?

      Okay, JetBlue has a lot of them covered, at least at its new JFK and Long Beach terminals: almost-clean bathrooms, plenty of food, comfortable seating and waiting areas that are pretty clean and attentive to modern technology (lots of plugs, computer terminals).

    For the rest of the items, the airline gets mixed grades. Flight times can be inconvenient (over-nighters or late-night flights to Syracuse; several airports not accessible at all); passengers can be demanding and obnoxious (is this out of an airline’s control?); planes themselves can be a little disheveled, loud and small; food is sparse or expensive, although carry-ons are allowed; airline personnel can be friendly (sometimes overly so, in the case of some pilots) but many also are in the “just doing my job” waiter/waitress category.)

     That’s still far better than my experiences on three other airlines in recent years (to remain nameless in this space). Message there: Avoid all but JetBlue Airlines, if you can.

     Still, even with the passing grades for JetBlue, what’s left to dread?

      Enough, what with all the frequent times that the “mixed grades” items are in fact annoying and the overall time demands and inconveniences created by scheduling and security.    

      (Side note: And then there is the report Sunday that two flights out of JFK hit birds and were forced to turn around. Could happen to any airline, I know, but …) 

       Again, putting it all down in writing makes the problems sound pretty petty. What’s a little security strip-down, a crowded airplane, a smelly, disgusting bathroom?

     So, also again, I must grant that part of the issue is age. Geezers are less tolerant of inconveniences, more tied to routine and home comforts and more likely to be uncomfortable with public bathrooms (while being more needy of same), limited food options, crowds, lines and long rides in planes, cars, trains or boats.

      Ironically, though, advanced age brings job retirement for most and thus more time to travel.

      And older folks do seem more likely to fly, judging from the airport crowds I’ve seen in recent years.

      You would think, especially for the huge “baby boomer” bubble that dominates so many other aspects of American life, the airlines would be more attentive to the older crowd.

      Instead, it just seems airline personnel have their heads down, feeling pressured and put upon by the demanding public (especially hard-to-please, slow-moving geezers) and just striving to get through their 20-hour flight shift and make their next stopover.

      One alternative for people like me to just give up. Many older persons just stick to home, where they welcome their families for visits. Tempting.

      Another option, if the first is impossible due to finances and distance and busy family schedules, is to concentrate on planning well in advance and trying for less popular travel periods.

      I tried that with my South Bend trip, with mixed results. There was still overcrowding, long waits, unfilled airline promises (for carts to take my 85-year-old mom to distant gates for her connecting flights) and poor service (the special first-class accommodations for my mom were not worth the fee). 

      But that was a total non-JetBlue trip.

      Rambling to my bottom line: I do have lots of distant places I want to see (the “bucket list”), visit (family and friends) and just get out to (for entertainment and sports venues) but — barring a sudden economic windfall that allows for the purchase of a private jet or car service  — all of the above-cited negative factors in getting there will limit my movements.

       Do I just need an attitude adjustment (see Sept. 27 posting)? Well, some airline adjustments would also be nice.     

(Above: Reporters and photographers surrounded a woman who placed flowers outside the Newtown school where 20 students were killed Dec. 15. From the NY Times, photo by Eric Thayer, Reuters)  

     When tragedy strikes, the news media pounces. It’s a fact of life, past present, and future. We would expect nothing less. And, understandably, we do want details of what happened as fast as possible.

      But our society has progressed from the swarm of notebook-carrying reporters and flashbulb-popping photographers of the early 20^th century —  working mostly on distant deadlines for newspapers — to an onslaught of television satellite trucks, 24-7 nationwide reporting from makeshift TV studios at the scene and individual access to mass communication networks and devices, producing a frenzied competition for immediate new information.

      As I detailed in my previous blog, this makes everything more difficult for everyone involved, in particular families of the victims (or the victims themselves, in cases of natural disasters).

     The intense attention can add another layer of suffering for those already struggling mightily to cope with the tragedy.    

      What to do?

      While as I may support government regulations as a means to improve dangerous, out-of-control situations (like gun ownership or bank frauds), I favor a more Republican, free-market approach when it comes to handling media excesses.

      Of course, it would be nice if the TV media itself recognized the problem and took on some self-regulation, like they do with combat or court coverage where space is limited so a “pool reporter” system is employed.

      But I see little chance of that happening in such situations as mass shootings or natural disasters, which require quick, impromptu convergence on a normally wide-open crime scene.

      Instead, the burden of controlling such instances — to create the optimum environment for first responders, law enforcement investigations, victims, relatives of victims and the community response as a whole — falls primarily on those involved.

      Overall, that means putting solid, fair, enforceable media controls in an individual community’s formal, written disaster response plan.

      Yes, this could sound like a small-scale imposition of always-hated government regulations of our free press, but I’d like to think of it more as a cooperative effort that stops well short of enacting laws, which would carry fines or jail time if violated. (Still, I guess some threat of penalties should exist — like expulsion from the affected area for a limited period, like two days, or fines for trespassing — in order to enforce the limits being enacted.)  

     Government leaders need to sit down with media representatives and draw up strategies that keeps the “baby” alive — vital communications and full reportage — while tossing out the “bath water” of traffic congestion, community disruptions and bombardments of individuals involved in the incident at hand (victims, witnesses, families of victims, law enforcement personnel, first responders, relief agencies. etc.).

      Authorities in areas like Newtown that have gone through recent tragedies should be consulted. Perhaps someone could take the lead in creating a website or other central source where advice from such communities would be gathered and organized. That way, the communities wouldn’t be hit with hundreds or individual requests, and the information can be readily available.

      In a community’s plans, maybe open spaces can be designated for the parking of media vehicles and broadcast setups, or at least a system can be set up for the quick creation of such areas that would be convenient to the media while out of the way of the community’s pressing needs at the time. Traffic flow in and out of the area should be tightly controlled.

      Can there be a local version of “Marshall Law” – a temporary creation of controls and property restrictions (defining what is public and thus where news people can gather or set up broadcast sites) to keep chaos from ensuing? 

     Media contacts or even press conference areas should be set up, like those established for post-game interviews. If this also produces a “pool reporter” system, so be it.

      In Newtown, police officers were reportedly assigned to the homes of victims’ families, to ward off the media. Great idea. If a community has enough officers to spare, I say this should absolutely be done (or offered to those who want it).

      And how about some sort of intervention to temporarily set up private phone numbers for those affected or expected to be the subjects of intense media interest (like families of victims)? That way, they can still be accessible to those they want or need to speak with while ignoring their main phones as they ring 24-7 with calls from inquiring media types.       

      In any event, a system should be in place in every American locality for immediately taking care of the dozens of reporters, camera crews, celebrity journalists and other media types (Dr. Phil) that will quickly descend on it.

      Beyond that, controlling news media craziness is up to each individual.

      For starters, I believe many people need to realize one thing: No one is required to speak to a news reporter.

      My impression is that an awful lot of people feel there is some obligation to cooperate with news media types. And, of course, those in the news business will never correct that impression. Quite the contrary, some reporters or broadcasters approach people with an attitude that implies cooperation IS something required (or at least expected) and something must be wrong with anyone who declines.

      That’s why my proposed way of responding, if one is the subject of mass media interest, does entail cooperation, though limited.

        When people turn down or avoid the press, they tend to be described negatively (and inaccurately) in media accounts, as “reclusive,” “in hiding,” “holed up,” “avoiding publicity,” “secretive” or some such.

      That’s simply a way for the media to justify to their bosses, viewers or readers why they did not get an interview: “Gee, I tried, but they’re not talking. Not my fault. They’re reclusive.”

     Worse, when someone turns down interviews, the media turns to anyone and everyone who knows them and IS willing to talk: friends, relatives, neighbors, the convenience store clerk, the former coach … you name it.

      How many of us would like to be depicted in widely distributed accounts by our relatives, friends, neighbors, etc.? How many people know you well enough to provide accurate details about your life? I know some wives or husbands who don’t even know their spouses well enough to give a true picture.

       If you want your side of a story or the truth about your experiences/circumstances told, you need to tell it yourself. 

      And to be fair and ensure accuracy, you should get it out to all the various outlets that provide information to most people: newspapers, television, and radio.

      My suggestion is to reward the “best” reporters — those who approach you first — from each of seven media: major metropolitan newspaper (e.g. New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times); local daily newspaper; local weekly newspaper; local TV station; TV network; radio network; local radio station. That way you cannot be accused of being unfairly selective or prejudiced towards one media/reporter or another.  If you do have a favorite, go ahead and include him or her, too.  Whatever you can handle.

      You can talk to them separately, together or in groups, and grant follow-ups as you choose. Secure communication methods (unlisted cell phone or landline numbers) should be put in place.

      You then make it clear — through public statements, a recording on your telephone, signs on your yard, whatever — that this is your limit and the rest of the media should scram (or words to that effect).

       You now should have control of the situation. You are being cooperative. Your story is being told and disseminated widely by reputable news agencies (as opposed to simply being posted ion some social media outlet, which should be off-limits to the media, anyway, but that’s for another blog, another time).

       Can it work?

       Well, even if the exact outline of my proposal is not followed, I believe you get my gist: Communities and individuals can and should take control in instances of media onslaught.

       The key in such situations is treating the media — as an entity —with respect, acknowledging the reality of their presence and their legitimate needs. Dealing up front and straight with the media, while keeping the hordes at bay, should serve the best interests of people caught up in tragic circumstances.

      Of course, this respect should be mutual but people involved in tragic situations cannot be bothered with worrying about the niceties of media relations. They just have to tame the beast. 

(Below: Satellite trucks in Treadwell Park, in Newtown, Conn., Dec. 15th, 2012. The town park became a small village for press and media that descended on the town following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday. Photo: Ned Gerard / Connecticut Post

(In photo: Media vans and trucks in Newtown, Conn., Wednesday, Dec. 19. Image by Julio Cortez / AP)

I think we can all agree: A mass convergence of news media on the scene of a major tragedy like the Newtown shooting Dec. 14 makes matters worse for everyone, including them. 

     As a retired small-town journalist, it pains me to state that. I strongly believe in — and often defend — the basic tenants of my former craft. 

     But an occupation by hordes of media does not produce journalism as I knew it, or as it is taught in journalism schools or quality newspapers nationwide.   

     And at a time when calm, clarity and order are of prime importance to generate the optimal atmosphere for quick and accurate dissemination of information, law enforcement work and meeting the physical and emotional needs of grieving families and communities, we instead have media-generated chaos: makeshift broadcast centers, traffic congestion, pressures for quick and immediate answers from authorities or others involved, intrusions into grief-stricken lives, 24-7 national attention and ever-changing informational flows. 

      The prime culprits, or at least the most obvious ones in these instances, are the television news outlets, with their spotlights, satellite trucks, celebrity journalists, microphones in faces and constant, obvious, ubiquitous presence. 

      No one could watch the aftermath of the incident unfold last weekend without seeing plainly that nearly all the people affected by the horror would be so much better off — so much better able to cope — without the attention of CNN, Fox News, ABC, NBC, CBS and whoever else had set up shop in their community. 

      That fact was made starkly clear by the dearth of actual news in these broadcasts, not to mention the plethora of mistakes in the early reporting (as is usual in such situations; don’t news outlets ever learn to treat early, unofficial information with skepticism until it is confirmed?) 

     There was simply no need, from a news reporting standpoint, for every news program on the major networks — not to mention entertainment shows like “Dr. Phil”  — to devote every available broadcast news minute at the scene for at least three solid days. 

     Yes, of course, it was a major tragedy. One of the worst ever. Major news coverage was in order. 

      But the actual nuggets of new information — the only legitimate reason for the coverage — were few and very far between on the broadcasts. That forced the on-air news and entertainment personalities to fill time — to speculate, gab, repeat, commiserate or delve into unnecessary and potentially misleading sidebar discussions — about psychology, religion, guns, children, therapy, teaching, security, etc. — with whoever they could line up and call an expert, or at least a source with a title that made him or her seem credible.   

      Is it just a practical problem — that network news operations are so short staffed that they cannot cover a major event while also continuing coverage of other items? Did the New York Times bring its entire news operation to a halt while covering Newtown? No, the paper sent a team of reporters and provided voluminous, in-depth coverage while continuing to report news from the rest of the nation and the world. 

    If it’s not a staffing problem, the constant TV presence can only be explained by competition (“everybody else is here doing it”) or show business (“this stuff produces high ratings”), not journalism. 

      In defending their performance, TV news organizations likely would start with: “We’re just doing our job. Mass news coverage is as much a part of a major event — good or bad — as extra police patrols, politicians, fund-raisers, etc. Always has been, always will be. Everyone knows it has to be dealt with, and it serves a vital purpose.” 

     That would be okay if it stopped at just that — journalists doing “their job”: observing, gathering information as it becomes available, checking for accuracy, blending into the background, following leads or pursuing facts with respect for the situation and what I call the Four Ps of professional journalism: patience, persistence, pleasantness and pluck. 

    Instead, the mass TV approach values immediate gratification (e.g. pushing for interviews with children at the scene rather than taking a more prudent, considerate approach as the days progress), visuals (overhead helicopter shots) and show business (theme music with a show title, celebrity news anchors at the scene, reporting from in front of scenic backgrounds, stylish promotions for upcoming coverage on other network shows). 

     In addition, the sheer volume (and thus intrusiveness) of media in the 21st century, with the 24-7 news cycle, makes for a wholly untenable atmosphere for simply doing good journalism.

   For stark evidence of the negative effects of the coverage, just check out the Facebook entries for Newtown, as reported last week by BuzzFeed, under the headline, ”Newtown Residents Excoriate The Media On Facebook,” and accompanied by the photo (above) by Julie Cortex of the Associated Press of the broadcast media satellite trucks on WEDNESDAY – four days after the shooting.

     It starts with a message from the hometown paper, Newtown Bee: “On behalf of the entire staff of the Bee — we are imploring ALL our colleagues and journalists to PLEASE STAY AWAY FROM THE VICTIMS. We acknowledge it is your right to try and make contact, but we ask you to do what is right and let them grieve and ready their funeral plans in peace.”

     Commented one resident: “And ask the pols to turn of their sirens, the helicopters to hover elsewhere, and the picketers to respect the fallen.”

     Try and visualize that scene, then four or five days running: A community at its lowest moment, trying to somehow face each day despite unbearable grief, and being watched  — from above and in front and via telephone — and horded and asked for information and comments and descriptions of their feelings and …   

     Another resident lamented that the media would not be leaving anytime soon or “respecting the privacy of the funeral home as a sacred place for people to say good-bye and support the families. As I drove down main street today, I was upset at the number of cameras just aimed at the door of the funeral home. I say the community should put up a screen of sorts to block them from seeing the funeral home. The last thing these families need is to see their family and friends in these tender moments broadcast for the world to see.”

    Someone posted that the residents’ phones ring from 7 a.m. until 11 p.m., with reporters also coming to their doors. “LEAVE US ALL ALONE,” she added.

    “Shame on those who have tried to contact the families. For a damn story, Let them morn in peace,” a resident wrote.   

    A woman claimed a CBS news person lied to her, saying she was “a friend of the grieving mothers. She came with a plant and so we let her on the property only to find out she was with the news. Some of these people just don’t have a soul.”

    And on it went.

    Even in the unlikely event these bitterly upset residents are in the minority, it’s still clear that a mass media convergence creates misery for thousands of people, including those already suffering the most: families of the victims.

     Can this be justified as “just doing our job, so sorry.” No, not when the job can be done just as well without all the rudeness, deceptions, obsessiveness, intrusiveness and, yes, numbers.    

    News people swarm all over the scene of a tragedy, all after the same information. The media are overwhelming and, without fail, become part of the story they are covering. 

     That’s an anathema to good journalists but evidently part and parcel of being a broadcast journalist, especially at the scene of major events. 

      The on-air TV people put on their oh-so-sad faces and commiserate and reach their collective arms around the grieving community, like they are there to help and sympathize and share in their grief. They’ve seen the surveys, met with the focus groups. They know viewers want to see news people care, that they feel their story subjects’ pain.   

    But, of course, this as just so much maneuvering and manipulating  (even if they do, as human beings, become sincerely touched or moved by what they are seeing) so they can do what they came to do: Get the story, get it first and capture the raw emotions of the moment (“How did you feel?”). If it makes for good TV, tears trump taste. Objectivity be damned. Restraint is for losers. 

     The broadcast approach is duplicitous and rubs me raw.  At least the print reporters from mainstream news organizations are less obtrusive and, from my experience, less likely to resort to cheap ingratiation (and fake sympathy) to get a story. They are news reporters up front.  Cold, maybe, but just doing their job. 

     A second line of defense for the TV news people would be noting the good things that resulted from their intense coverage, like the truckloads of stuffed toys or other supplies from other places, the nationwide support generated, etc. 

      Call me biased on the subject, but I just see such outpourings as occurring regardless of the 24-7, obsessive nature of the coverage. A considerate— but still aggressive — media presence ­would produce just as much attention as what we’re getting. 

     To further offset criticism of their harmful impact, TV news people immediately begin seeking out and then beating the drum for anyone they can portray as a “hero” or at least a courageous victim. 

     At the Columbine school shooting, that produced a wholly inaccurate worship for one student victim and a dissing of another who actually may have been heroic, according to David Cullen’s extraordinary book, “Columbine.” 

    God help our current TV hero-builders when the full account of the Newtown shooting finally comes out in coming months and years. We can only hope the adults or children they immediately put up for public adoration in the hours just after the tragedy prove to be the real heroes of the situation.  

      One thing’s for certain, Cullen found: If a different accounting of the facts eventually is produced, the mass media will not return in coming months or years to set the record straight. The images and stories generated in the first few days will be the ones that last in the public consciousness.     

    Whew. 

     I guess I’ve made my point, but so what? What can be done about this? 

      There’s no chance the media will control itself and tone down their onslaught approach to coverage. The market rules, and competition will remain forever fierce for readers and viewers. 

     And I would never suggest any government actions to curtail our wonderfully free press. 

    It all comes down to the slim chance the public will recognize the problem and take actions to make the media tow the line.

       I’ve been mulling over this solution ever since the media debacle that unfolded in 2000 over the Elian Gonzalez case in Miami. 

     In my next blog, I will share my proposal

“Hey, life is short,” we say when excusing ourselves for doing something that could be considered risky or otherwise unnecessary in the day-to-day scheme of things.

       As in:

 Person 1: “Why the hell did you bungee jump naked off that 200-foot bridge?”

 Person 2: “Hey, life is short. You’ve got to go for the gusto while you can.”

      As one’s life expectancy does actually grow short, a popular action these days is preparation of a “bucket list,” a term popularized by a 2007 movie by that name directed by Rob Reiner.

      It refers to the compilation of a list by two dying men (played by Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman) of things they want to do before they “kick the bucket.”

      The idea of such a list struck adventurous baby boomers (like myself) hard, given they are/were the free-loving, free-roaming sort who once saw anyone over 30 as hopelessly too old. Now they are twice that age, and the end is near, even for the healthy ones.

     Thus, a “bucket list” became something that wasn’t just for the soon-to-die set depicted in the film.

      At the same time, then, there certainly is no move more indicative of having attained “geezer” status than the creation of a “bucket list.”

     But first, June Thomas, a cultural critic for Slate, wondered in a November 2011 article, “Where did the term bucket list come from?”

      Surely, she reasoned, it did not come from the movie, “in which, to quote the Internet Movie Database, ‘Two terminally ill men escape from a cancer ward and head off on a road trip with a wish list of to-dos before they die.’

      She continued:

“I turned to the newly released fifth edition of the American Heritage Dictionary, but, sadly, it’s not included. Executive editor Steve Kleinedler told me that, although he’s been keeping an eye on the term, it needs a few more years in usage before it proves itself worthy of addition to the big book.

“A quick search through Google Books suggests that though the phrase was popularized by the 2007 film, it was indeed used occasionally before Jack and Morgan hit the road. Its first application seems to have been in computer programming: e.g., “Guava compiler knows statically that there are no references from buckets inside of one bucket list to objects inside another.”

“In 1993, the phrase showed up in a different context: a National Labor Relations Board report indicating agenda items that must be postponed (getting warmer): ‘The conferees were told that if comments or questions came up concerning bargainable issues or items that required more information, these matters should be placed in a ‘bucket list’ to indicate that they could not be considered at the conference.’

In 2004, the term was used — perhaps for the first time? — in the context of things to do before one kicks the bucket (a phrase in use since at least 1785) in the book Unfair & Unbalanced: The Lunatic Magniloquence of Henry E. Panky, by Patrick M. Carlisle. That work includes the sentences, ‘So, anyway, a Great Man, in his querulous twilight years, who doesn’t want to go gently into that blacky black night. He wants to cut loose, dance on the razor’s edge, pry the lid off his bucket list!’ ”

       So, “bucket list,” as a term, does appear to be of pretty modern coinage. But we can assume the practice of “last wishes” goes back as far as humankind.

       For me, this all came to the forefront Oct. 18-21.  For four days in South Bend, Ind., an informal “bucket list” item for both my mother, 85, and myself — taking part in a University of Notre Dame football weekend — was successfully checked off.

      My mom had been saying for years “we really ought to go to a Notre Dame game sometime.” We are simply lifelong fans of the Fighting Irish. Her Uncle Charlie, a Catholic priest, taught there in the 1930s and 1940s. Even without that direct connection, the Catholic faith of our youths almost dictated that you root for good ole Notre Dame.

    When circumstances finally did open up an opportunity this fall to make that lifelong wish come true, we flew out from our respective homes in California and Clinton to see the undefeated (7-0 then, 9-0 now) Irish win a thriller over Brigham Young University.

     We also took in a hockey game in the university’s year-old state-of-the-art rink, toured various campus and off-campus sites and had some great times.

     (That’s my mom in the picture above, posing at the end of the famous tunnel from which football teams enter Notre Dame Stadium from their locker rooms on game day.) 

       I’d say we created memories that will last a lifetime but, of course, that phrase doesn’t carry much meaning if we’re talking about a “bucket list” item. After all, the “lifetime” after an experience that immediately precedes “kicking the bucket” is, by definition, pretty short. But, taking the cliche figuratively rather than literally, the point is it was the experience of a lifetime.

      On the other hand, my “lifetime,” at age 60, could stretch another 20-30 years (if my family genes rule my destiny). Shouldn’t I be thinking of going back to South Bend sometime, maybe to accompany my grandchildren or nephews or even just as a solo trip in my old age?

       Yes. And no.

       Looking at the next few decades and considering how I — like millions of people my age and younger — grow less fond of traveling with each passing year, I have to entertain the notion that each big trip somewhere will be my final one to that site.

     For one thing, most of my family lives in distant places, so my increasingly limited travel time should be spent getting to see them.

      For another, I have a pretty long “bucket list” in my head, places I’d like to visit and experiences I’d like to have before I get too old. So, returning to any one of them for a second visit seems very unlikely.

     And finally, travel costs money. Retirement means less money. Less money means fewer trips.

     Luckily, my primary interest lies in seeing or doing things in the United States of America. I’d love to visit many U.S. places I’ve read about, seen in movies or watched often on television. Thus, mine is a relatively cheap bucket list.

      To get that list out of my head and onto paper, here’s some things that come immediately to mind:

 ** Attend a baseball World Series game at Yankee Stadium. (If the Yankees lose, then maybe try another, probably in the wheelchair section.)

 ** Tour the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland.

 ** Tour the Motown (“Hitsville”) studios in Detroit.

 ** Spend a week or more in Washington, D.C., visiting the White House, Congress, the Smithsonian Institute and all the other various tourist sites.

 ** See the Dakotas (Mt. Rushmore) and other far northwestern states like Montana, Washington and Oregon. Not sure what to do, maybe just drive through and spend a night or two, see the beautiful countryside in a place that is probably as different from my present surroundings as is possible while still being in the United States.

 ** Go to major league baseball games (or at least tour the parks) in Baltimore, Seattle, Detroit, Cleveland (been to the old park, like to check out the new one), Minneapolis, San Francisco, San Diego and maybe one or two more, like the Mets’ new park and the White Sox’ new park. (Been to old and new Yankee Stadium, Shea Stadium, the Polo Grounds, Wrigley Field, Fenway Park, Comiskey Park, Milwaukee, Angels, Dodgers Stadium, Atlanta and Cincinnati.).

 ** Go to a Broadway opening or movie premiere for a show/movie I’d love to see.

 ** Take an ocean cruise overseas. Just one should be enough.

 ** Meet some of my favorite celebrities.

 ** Go to famous museums in New York City that I’ve missed over the years. Maybe time it so I can attend the annual New Yorker Festival in October sometime.

 ** If there could ever be a relaxing, comfortable method of air travel, tour one or more foreign countries. Love to see London, Paris, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland.  (Been overseas just once, to Italy on a group tour; loved the country, loved the experience, hated the flights there and back on Air France).    

 ** Hang glide off the Golden Gate Bridge (just kidding, of course, just seeing if anyone is still paying attention).

     Seeing it written down, my list seems pretty doable, almost too simple.

     Maybe mine really should be called a “bowl list.” 

      So toss in that second trip to South Bend. What the heck. Life is short. 

     OK, enough about me.  Those big introspective blogs are difficult to write, risky to share and probably very hard for everyone to read.

     So, with that last piece now long settled, let’s get back to a subject we can all have fun with: TV bashing. Yea! High five!

      Specifically, let’s discuss the whacky love and respect given by the general populace to television news personnel.     

      Narrowing it down even further, it’s the super-sized egos of network news anchors or morning-show hosts — a conceit orbiting high above any earth-bound reality of their abilities or talent — that have bugged me for, oh, a few decades.

     Of course, I am far from alone in this reaction. Egocentric talking thickheads have been a rich source of comedy for as long as they’ve popped up on television.

     Among the most memorable were Ted Baxter of the “Mary Tyler Moore Show” and Will Ferrell in “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy” along with characters in the movies “Network” and “Broadcast News” and various skits on “Saturday Night Live.”

     The bitter truth: Individuals whose prime qualifications for a position include strong vocal abilities, good acting skills (sad face, happy face) and an attractive appearance will not, as a general rule, also possess strong journalistic skills.  

      But we — that’s you and me, as viewers — make them think they do.

      We treat these people as top journalists, rather than, perhaps more apropos, just top performers/broadcasters or even top broadcast journalists, entities to be judged separately from the profession as a whole.

      They are granted an unwarranted authority, depth and importance.

     Yes, the bottom-line fault in this situation lies with the public. People tend to worship all things television, and small-screen stars of all types wow them. To be on TV is to be recognized, to be glamorous.  Just look at people’s reactions when they appear even momentarily on a stadium Jumbotron. They go nuts.

     Evan as a small-town print journalist, I went up against this. While I would struggle at times to get cooperation for interviews or information, just let a TV newsperson walk in the room or express an interest in the subject matter. Good God. People would light up, make room, push me aside, scramble, offer refreshments, talk for hours, provide documents to make their job easier … whatever. It was almost embarrassing to watch the gushing and mood change.

     On the national level, this overboard reaction is multiplied many times over by the heightened celebrity factor.  

      What’s so wrong with that?

      Well, as celebrity worship, this perhaps can be justified. But when it crosses over to assigning these people some higher intelligence quotient based on their positions in the news operation, it goes too far.

     Here’s what I’m trying to say:

      In college journalism classes, I remember a key point about the then-dominant evening network newscasts was that the amount of information contained in a typical show, if set in type, would fit into one corner of the front page of the New York Times.

      I extrapolated that comparison over the years to how TV news generally compares to its print brothers: Network news is to major metropolitan newspapers as local news is to small-town daily newspapers – paling in comparison, a news outline, a summary, a headline service.

      If you want the real story, you have to get it from a print source or, these days, an online version of newspaper products or a source that seeks to copy that type news operation.

     Practitioners of print-oriented journalism, by and large, have to be enterprising, detail-obsessed masters of their coverage area or “beats.” They become mini-experts, able to branch out into writing lengthy books on the subjects they cover.

     Broadcast journalists tend to be none of the above. They are creatures of the sound bite, the short report, the general wrap-up. Their talent lies in being able to present a story in a crisp, clear, entertainingly visual manner.

     To be sure, it takes a lot of skill to do a quality TV report. But it doesn’t take a lot of depth or traditional journalistic skills, at least in comparison to the amount needed from a print journalist.

      And being a network anchor, or even the on-screen talent for a news show like “60 Minutes,” requires even less. 

     Yet, people treat these people in inverse proportion to their mental and journalistic abilities.  TV news anchors are given reverential treatment, TV news reporters/correspondents are put on pedestals of varying heights (according to their popularity, which largely can stem from looks, as opposed to product), and print journalists operate in virtual anonymity.

      Now, these print journalists likely prefer their anonymity; it helps them do the best job possible — real journalists avoid, at all costs, being part of a story — and removes the unwanted diversions that come with attention and celebrity.

      But the rub comes when they observe their broadcast counterparts treated with some great respect, as experts in their subject areas, when the print journalists know the broadcasters are pretty shallow and not nearly as knowledgeable as many others working the beat on a day-to-day basis.

     For me, a glaring example of misplaced reverence came when retired NBC news anchor Tom Brokaw was invited to speak several years ago at nearby Hamilton College. It was part of the institution’s highly regarded Sacerdote speaker series, which also has featured Elie Wiesel, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Rudy Giuliani, Margaret Thatcher, Madeline Albright, Desmond Tutu. Condaleeza Rice, Al Gore — you get the picture.

     Tom Brokaw? In that group? Really?

     But he was treated as royalty by faculty and students alike, as if he was some expert on the stories he “announced” or “covered” as an anchor on the scene (like the fall of the Berlin wall). It all made me nauseous.

      It’s not all Brokaw’s fault, as I’ve noted. People are worshipful of TV talking heads, and if that means the heads tend to swell even bigger, you can’t totally blame the brain inside. It’s being pumped up by outside forces.

      And I’m sure a lot of the TV people like Brokaw try to be self-effacing and humble and oh-so “aw shucks, I’m not so special.”

      But they still rise to the praise and seem pretty well self-satisfied, enough so that many write (or at least put their names on) books about their views or experiences (although they tend to take on subjects of personal interest, like their dads or dogs or a fictional mystery or “the Greatest Generation”). Their names on book mean they sell off the shelves, of course.

      At times, I wonder if I should consider a prospect opposite from what I’m espousing. Just maybe people like Brokaw, his successor Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, Matt Lauer, et al., actually are that wonderful and smart and worth our admiration, above many others in the field.

     By extension, then, I would have to mull whether their counterparts on the local level – the anchors and reporters for the local TV stations that I’ve seen in action firsthand over three decades as a small-town journalist — also are the equivalent of those practicing the journalism craft for print operations in their towns.

      And that idea is frankly laughable.  Sorry. I’ve met some very nice local broadcasters over the years, and I can think of one radio jack-of-all-trades who worked as hard and was every bit as capable as any print reporter or editor I’ve come across. Just one. In 30-plus years of small-town journalism.

       Otherwise, as a group, they are hit-and-run, quick-take, surface-only reporters.

      And they are, understandably, vain. Appearance is a major part of their job. But this is not a quality associated with good journalism.

      In addition, most appear primarily focused on gaining enough experience to get to a larger market. Very few stay long. If they can’t move up, they get out.

       It is a little easier not to laugh at the idea that news people on the national level are not as comparably vain, career-centered, shallow and unskilled as the local TV versions. They are presumably the best in their field and must have earned some respect and in-depth experience on their rise to the top 

       But my observations and reading of news accounts about these people indicate otherwise, so I do still laugh, when I’m not in full-mock mode.

      Is there anyone who rises above the fray?

       I admire Lester Holt on NBC, a straight-ahead, hard-working, few-frills news anchor who also seems to have kept a humble head despite the adoring masses.

      I’ve also seen some weekend hosts or substitute anchors that seem similarly worth their positions while personally understated, like Maggie Rodriguez on ABC. 

     In conclusion — I have no conclusion. I have to just go with a weak cliché: It is what it is.

      A splintering of national televised news into more outlets (CNN, FOX, MSNBC) has not lowered the egocentric nature of its lead practitioners.       One can only hope that the younger generation, paying less and less attention to traditional news operations, will lower their profile.

       On the other hand, the youth of America are turning their attention even more to broadcast media (on phones, tablets, etc.) and do not seem any less inclined to treat celebrity news people with any less reverence.

       Granted, it’s not one of the more pressing issues of our time, but when we give undo credence to these airy talking heads (as it seems conservatives particularly do, with Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and the other Fox TV people), it does raise the specter of being greatly misinformed or misled.

ADDENDUM

While we’re on the topic of TV news people:

     The coverage of Hurricane Sandy’s East Coast smash once again brought us the age-old silliness of putting anchors “on the scene” of disasters (or other major news events).

     Certainly nothing diminishes the sature or integrity of these news representatives more than the sight of them struggling against the howling winds and rains of a major storm while leading coverage on their newscasts.  

    The same can be said of TV reporters put in harm’s way — being blown sideways on a beach or standing knee-deep in water on a street — as they report their stories.

     It’s just so unnecessary, unless they ‘re intentionally setting themselves up to be the laughingstock of the internet, Jon Stewart or your average news viewer.

     Just what do they think they’re doing?

     Do they really think people give more credence to a news event or the news anchor if he or she is standing or sitting at the scene of a news event – like the West Virginia shootings, the Michael Jackson funeral, the earthquake-ravaged Haiti (all of which were converged upon by news anchors)?

     News flash: They don’t.

     Do they not see how rediculous it looks to be talking about the dangers of a storm — or, worse, the forced evacuations of people in its path — while standing in the middle of it?

     News flash: You look stupid, at best, irresponsible, at worst.

     In the latest sorry episode, we had the otherwise-dignified CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley looking sadly windswept near a New Jersey beach Monday night as Hurricane Sandy was approaching.

     Now, this guy is attempting to be the serious face of a resurgent evening news operation — putting himself front and center each week for the network’s legendary and highly esteemed “60 Minutes” program — and he goes ahead and inexplicably stands like a drenched circus clown on a rainy beach.

     It certainly has no news value, so why do it? So you can show you are not just a talking head but do indeed get out and cover news?

     Not necessary.

     Really, this is just an ego thing for these anchors, a big show, an excuse to do some traveling and be part of the action rather than appear to be sitting apart from it, in the studio.

     But even morning-show weather jokesters like Al Roker should clearly realize that standing in the middle of a storm only makes them look mentally challenged, as opposed to giving their reports greater credibility.

   We would believe their reports just as much if they gave them from their customary studio positions, drawing on reports from persons authorized to be on the scene or, if they can’t be reached, a reporter.