AF
PHILOSOPHY & FAITH
The Media Punching Bag:
Ebola and Ferguson
October 24, 2014
On my first day of journalism school at Ohio University’s Scripps School of Journalism, one of premiere journalism programs in the U.S. I walked into my very first class, Journalism 101. I found a seat in the middle of the room— not too close and not too far away. Everyone looked older than I, a youthful 18-year-old, but this was college, where the people are mature and intellectual. (I later learned that characterization could not be broadly applied) I don’t remember how exactly, but at some point it became apparent that I was in the wrong room. So with a red face, I slinked out the door and entered the appropriate neighboring room.
When I finally made it to the right place, it was there that I learned one of my first lessons of college and journalism. I remember the professor and director of the journalism program distinctly saying that there is no such thing as “the media.” He was, in essence, saying that when people talk about “the media” is has no real meaning.
The fact is that people criticize the media on such a broad scale when it is widely unknown to them. These assertions are cliché as they are wildly overstated and therefore no have depth of meaning. To have an intellectually rich critique of and conversation about the topic of the media, like most things, requires specificity.
TOO BROAD
We have the media. Then there is the category of the mainstream media, which is slightly more specific, but still overwhelmingly broad. While there is research that suggests that people are likely to get their news from varied sources, the fact remains that the average news consumer does not have a broad understanding of what makes up the mainstream media, much less the broader category of media.
Often one’s perception of the ills of the media is divided along ideological lines. Ferguson presents an interesting example. Some, who generally did not support the protests in Ferguson, said “the media” was becoming too involved in the story, by being in positions to get arrested and inserting themselves into situations. Other cries from those who supported the protests said “the media” covered the looting and violence too heavily and were disconnected from the plight of those in the community. How can both of these broad generalizations of this fabled media be so? Certainly there is room to criticize news practices in Ferguson and those criticisms should be heard, but it only serves to confuse if everyone is just calling out the overbroad categories of the media or the mainstream media. It would serve the conversation much better to say what kind of media, or better yet, which outlets or specific journalists are contributing to what you see as the problematic coverage in Ferguson.
In reality there are few people who can accurately comment on journalism media in a holistic sense. Only one comes to mind, and that’s Brian Stelter, the former New York Times media reporter and current senior media correspondent for CNN.
Being so broad about the media can be likened to saying all white people are racist: 1) We know that is not true because most of us interact with and/or are a non-racist white person. 2) It is offensive to, particularly to non-racist white people, but also, society. 3) To make the overarching claim is not only untrue, but doesn’t help push forward the conversation about race. 4) It begs for specificity. “Don Imus called black basketball players ‘nappy headed hoes’ and people like him bolster the idea that racism still exists in the U.S.”
The same is true when talking about the news media: 1) Lumping the media into one big group proliferates untruth because many still read, watch and listen to journalists they think are doing the job right. 2) It’s offensive, particularly to those journalists who report appropriately. 3) It doesn’t help push the conversation of improving journalism forward because it is such a broad declaration. 4) It begs for specificity. “Don Imus’ radio show is an example of how some in the media can be ridiculous.”
CLICHÉ COMPLAINT
How many conversations have we all been in when someone complains about how “the media” is doing something wrong? It is an old complaint sucked dry with irrelevance because it means nothing. In reality complaining broadly about the media is a cliché. Unfortunately, too many of us enjoy things that have no meaning. Clichés hide our inadequacies, such as the lack of information or the need to talk without having much to say.
Person A: I have terminal cancer.
Person B: Time heals all wounds.
And there you have it— the cruelty of clichés. Instead, person B should try to give some specific encouragement because a terminal illness usually will not be healed in any amount of time.
THE EBOLA CASE
Ebola is a big deal these days and it can seem like hardly anything else is being covered, but that’s not actually true. There are those who complain that the media is responsible for overhyping the issue. Again, like in Ferguson, I don’t deny there is room to criticize media outlets for sensational coverage, but we often fail to consider other factors that lead to overhyped news events.
1) Personal responsibility
A Texas man called 911 incoherently claiming he had been exposed to Ebola because he was having dinner with a pilot who said he had been to West Africa. All responsible journalistic accounts would have mentioned that Ebola is not airborne and is only transmitted when those infected are exhibiting symptoms. This man is the only one to blame in this situation because of his own personal lack of understanding, media literacy and/or common sense.
2) Twitter
For the tech savvy media consumer, one might scroll through a personalized twitter feed on a regular basis. If you follow many media outlets all of them are probably covering Ebola. So in the course of a quick browse one may see many Ebola stories, but they probably are mostly the same. So one gets the impression that it is being talked about all the time, when in fact many outlets are simply covering the same exact story at the same exact time.
When Taylor released the video for her song ‘Shake It Off” rapper Earl Sweatshirt said the video perpetuated black stereotypes. This began trending on twitter making the controversy seem wide, when, in fact, upon viewing those twitter comments, most defended the video saying it was not controversial at all. But because people were talking about it, it overhyped a generally less popular opinion.
The same happens with any news event that has wide coverage. It appears widely talked about, though it is less hyped than visually presented on a twitter feed.
3) Facebook Friends
Social media also opens us up to more media outlets than we may normally interact with. Facebook friends and those on twitter will post stories that may grind one’s gears. So we read (the majority of) an article or two that we dislike and make claims about how the whole media is not doing their job.
SOLUTION
I mentioned the solution many times throughout and it is simple— be specific. Whatever you are claiming about the broad category of the media is very unlikely to be so broadly true. So instead of making meaningless comments, specifically address the issue. Cable news, traditionally liberal, traditionally right and big city newspapers are all more specific categories. Of course we generally shy away from these more specific categories because it is apparent in conversation that one generally does not watch all cable channels or read all the big city papers. Yet we feel confident speaking to the broader category of “the media.”
What helps more is to give examples of the specific outlet that leads to the complaint. Being specific requires more work and considering the careful use of language. So a choice must be made. Continue to speak in broad, clichéd terms while making meaningless assertions or embrace the chore of specificity and actually make a point.
FAIR FOLLOW
Propublica is a nonprofit news organization that produces in-depth investigative stories, which unfortunately is becoming more and more of an endangered form of journalism. The organization has an unorthodox business model that, along with its content, makes it a really interesting player on the journalism scene.
This post is a regurgitation and expansion of an article I read in the April issue of GQ magazine, so it’s pretty unoriginal. The article, written by Andrew Corsello, comes to no definite conclusion about the subject, but brings up a good question. THIS Andrew (that’s me, Andrew Fowler) will tell you the correct answer in this article. Actually, feel free to disagree.
The question that Corsello raises is if it is possible to be objective about artwork without introducing bias based on the artist’s personal background? The article is a response to a lot of talk about Woody Allen, my favorite director, and the continued accusations of child abuse.
First, things first, art is subjective anyway, so to have the words art and objectivity in the same sentence is almost moot. But the point isn’t that art is either objectively good or bad, but the question is can an objective lens be maintained outside of how the artist may unintentionally change our view.
In the article, Corsello brings up a question he asked his eleven year-old son. If he presented the boy with a painting that the boy then judged to be beautiful after looking at it, but then told him it was painted by Adolf Hitler, would his opinion change? His son said his opinion would change. The GQ columnist seemed to be convicted by his child’s answer, but because I have no relation to the kid I have no problem disagreeing 100 percent.
My simple answer is yes; objectivity is possible. If the painting is beautiful to me then it’s beautiful to me. And my reasoning is as simple as this. Imagine a version of the world where I know nothing about the artist, a world that is hardly hypothetical. What would I think then? Therein lies my objective lens from which I wish to operate and evaluate all artistic creations that cross my path. In addition, think of an admittedly more hypothetical version of the world where Hitler is born too far from power to ever gain any influence. Instead of trying to make the world into his distorted vision of perfection, he becomes a painter that gains some steam on the world stage after spending the time he would have used planning western domination to become a better artist. Deep down he would still have the same distorted vision, but it very well wouldn’t be something we knew about in this scenario. So we grow fond of his paintings and Hitler becomes the name of a world-renowned painter. Certainly there are celebrated people today who are total whack jobs behind closed doors, but in our ignorance we enjoy the bliss of their entertainment and skill.
List of Art and Objectivity Conundrums
-Adam Levine comes off as a big jerk when he speaks, but I will always love Maroon 5, especially the earlier stuff.
-Chris Brown hit a woman, whom I was in love with at the time, and has a generally jerkish vibe, but he can sing and can dance like crazy.
-John Mayer is John Mayer, but he has a soulful voice and knows how to write a song.
So, I mentioned my simple answer is yes, but I would be lying if I didn’t admit that things get more complicated, particularly when it comes to content.
I recently finished watching the American Film Institute’s Top 100 American films of all time. I approached #49— the film called Intolerance, a three-hour epic silent film from 1916. The problem is that a year earlier the film’s director, the great D.W. Griffith, directed The Birth of a Nation, based on the novel and play called The Clansman. It treats black Americans as inhumane savages and cast the Ku Klux Klan as the heroes of the story. I read an article that claims that Griffith was more politically neutral and was not necessarily a racist, but was simply making a film. This argument pretty much turns to dust when we learn that Griffith co-wrote the screenplay for The Birth of a Nation. It began to anger me deeply when I read the reviews of regular people and bona fide film critics praising the film for several technical and story-telling achievements. As I prepared to write my review of Intolerance I didn’t want to say anything good because I learned about the man behind the film and I didn’t like what was found. But I had to give credit to Intolerance for being the groundbreaking film that it is. I did put a short mention of the heinousness of The Birth of a Nation in my review because I couldn’t resist, but the truth of the matter is that if I view the work through an objective lens I understand it’s worth.
Things get understandably tricky when it comes to content. It’s easier for me to be objective about Intolerance because that film’s content is not egregious, but I will probably never watch The Birth of a Nation because I wouldn’t remain objective as its premise and content are pure foolishness. So maybe that is the true answer— avoid problematic content. That’s where I draw the line, but for others it may be to avoid the problematic artist if you know that will color you artistic experience. Just don’t view Hitler’s paintings, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, but maybe just don’t watch Woody Allen’s films, if and only if you know that your appraisal of the art will be biased by the artist’s background.
Art and Objectivity
September 18, 2014
People who’ve known me have suggested that I am a self-centered person. This I do not deny especially as I think about the old me. (my pre-college self) While I don’t vehemently argue against this point, in my defense, I’d like to suggest that there is a slight difference between general vanity (thinking you’re awesome) and self-centeredness (thinking the world revolves around you). The two go hand-in-hand, but I like to think that I tended (in the past of course) to veer toward the former. I was always keenly aware that the world and life was not about me and I never had a problem with that.
Well just as the difference is subtle between vanity and self-centeredness so too are certain other forms of self-centeredness. These “other” forms have probably been around just as long as more obvious self-centered behaviors such as materialism, inattention to the plight of others and talking too much about one’s self, but they aren’t explored so often in everyday life. Literature probably comments on these “other” forms better than my preferred form of art, film, because it takes a bit of time to represent them clearly. I’m not taking issue with these forms of subtle self-centeredness as a way to remove my own guilt in this matter, but simply to suggest as John Lennon stated in terms of being a dreamer, “I’m not the only one.”
There are three ways I see self-centeredness happening more subtly.
1. The philosophy of finding ‘it’ within myself
In reality this is the lie of self-sufficiency. What’s so annoying is that this philosophy has simply been repurposed to sound like different things, but in fact it’s so unoriginal and widespread. It’s the philosophy that states that within myself I can find all I need to live life to the fullest. People explain different ways of getting there, but it all essentially boils down to the idea that I alone can figure out everything. People don’t usually think of this as a self-centered philosophy because on the surface it sounds so inspiring.
Recently I read a quote on facebook, the place to go for pseudo-intellectual inspirational mumbo-jumbo. (the quote wasn’t on a friends profile so don’t try to figure out who it is) The quote is, “None can teach you, none can make you spiritual. None can teach you but your own soul.” In the context of this blog post I think the self-centered nature of the quote is obvious. To truly believe that no one else can teach me is one of the dumbest things I could ever believe. To truly believe that I can figure out something as irregular to this material world as spirituality all by myself is a ridiculous notion.
I think we have this Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz mentality. What Dorothy so wanted was to get back home to Kansas. We learn at movie’s end that the way home is by clicking her slippers three times— the slippers she had all along since the beginning of her time in Oz. While it’s true that she had the solution to her problem all along, this shouldn’t make Dorothy feel self-empowered. The reality of the situation makes her ignorance about how to get home all the more ironic. Even though she technically had what she needed to get what she wanted, she was completely clueless as to how to get it without the help of another.
2. Oversensitivity
This word found it’s way into my list of pet peeves from a few posts ago so I’ll keep this short. The reason it’s so annoying is because it’s rarely seen for what it truly is— a more subtle form of self-focus. When people are oversensitive it’s just plain annoying in the first place. What’s more egregious is that by blowing a situation out of proportion this makes everything about THAT person. If I complain that my feelings are hurt over every little thing, I’m suggesting that what people need to be most focused on is how what they do affects me. I used to be this way. I was a huge crybaby in primary school and in high school I used to secretly take a lot of things personally. One night as I was in the car with my mom in my third year of high school I was stressing out about everything going on in my life and how I was so busy. So my mom looked straight at me and shut me down. I can’t remember what her exact words were, but the quintessence of what was said was get over it and get over yourself, because you're stressing out about things that won’t even matter in a year. That idea really stuck with me I guess. I wasn’t complaining so much about a specific thing that a person did to me, but I was still communicating the idea that my feelings were the most important thing in life.
3. Wanting everyone to feel the way you do
In this blog post, and in others in the past, I consistently reference my younger days for examples of how I used to be awful. So am I perfect now? In an effort to be neither self-centered nor vain, I will say no. This third thing is something I see in myself a lot.
One Sunday my Slovene friend, Simon, and I went to the very best Chinese restaurant in Ljubljana after church. (Seriously the sweet and sour chicken is out of this world) There we started having a great conversation about life. It was in that conversation that I realized that I always think that people should feel the way I feel. The reason I think this is because I have usually taken time to come to what I see as the most logical conclusion. But the truth is that there are so many factors that go into how a person views a certain thing. The real danger in this is that a person can invalidate how other people feel and view them as illogical because they’re conclusion is different. I’m not suggesting an argument for relative truth, but people should be allowed to feel the way they feel especially as they’re sorting out a situation.
I recently watched the Iron Lady, the rather boring biopic (you’re free to feel differently) about the first female British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. While I don’t particularly agree with her politics there was a line that Meryl Streep uttered that I totally agree with. “Do you know, one of the greatest problems of our age is that we are governed by people who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas?” I think I yelled “PREACH” at the screen when she said this. I shouldn’t even really care too much that people feel differently than me, because at the end of the day feelings only go so far. Let’s talk about thoughts and ideas. If I obsess about people feeling differently than I, then I am no better than the self-centered, self-righteous person who fools himself into believing that within himself are the solutions to all of life’s problems.
Subtle Self-Centeredness
March 31, 2014
Thoughts on Getting Old
January 11, 2014
Picture courtesy of the "Make Me Old" App
In Slovenia, there is an understanding when riding the bus that you always give your seat to an elderly person. I’m sure this is a time-honored tradition in other places as well, but I’m not sure it’s as distinctly recognized as the rule is here. Certain questions arise when trying to adhere to this unspoken rule because, well, it’s… unspoken. Is the age for “elderly” status different for males and females? What if I offer my seat and they don’t take it? And the most basic question is what exactly is the age range for this rule to apply?
Another question: do the elderly have any obligation to other elderly folks on the bus? Nearly two months ago I was riding the bus on the way into the city center. At the very front sat an older woman who had placed her two or three bags full of groceries on the seat to her right. Because there were no seats available I stood. Following my entrance another elderly woman mounted the bus wheeling some sort of large cart-like thing with a white-as-day-old-snow blanket covering whatever contents lay inside. When you’re old (and have been for a while) I imagine you start assuming that there will always be a seat available for you, but this was the one time that there was not and also the one time when the second old woman probably could have used a seat the most. I suppose that my previous statement was untrue. There was a seat available for her, but it was being occupied by two or three bags full of groceries. This was the point of some contention as the lady began rolling her eyes with the intensity of a train moving full speed. The issue didn’t stop with coarse glances as the second old woman wasn’t having it. I’m unsure of exactly what she said, but I assume she was expressing her frustration that the first old woman wouldn’t move her bags. Something about their interaction made me think that the two elders might, in fact, know each other (but this may be as ridiculous a notion as when people suggested that I knew all the black people at my University). Anyway, near me on the bus were two young people who were about my age. They were Slovene and thus had the fortune of understanding the vehement exchange between the two women. The three of us together, as the argument continued and even escalated, exchanged constant glances back and forth and, I’m a bit ashamed to admit, were laughing at this war of words between the agèd adults.
The reasons this exchange was so funny to watch are twofold. First, this fight was so slow moving. I couldn’t help but imagine that if the argument continued in the way it was going, things could get physical and would result in the most glacially paced rumble known to man. (But isn’t that pretty much the premise of the new Dustin Hoffman/Sylvester Stallone boxing movie?) Second, us younger folks have these expectations of how old people should behave and forget that old people have emotions that are meaningful. (Don’t worry the three of us younger kids will get our just reward when we get old, or if we don’t grow old it means we will have died young)
Why I fear aging is because getting old usually takes one of two paths, neither of which I am comfortable with. Both end the same, with the wider perception that all old people are slightly incoherent and senile. The first path is the stereotypical old and grumpy person. Maybe this is a defense mechanism, because if people are going to find you incoherent, you might as well just not care about what those people think and turn up the grouch-factor. I am convinced, though, that most of what leads to this attitude is nostalgia, which creeps up on the middle-aged like a thief in the night. I personally reject nostalgia, because I realize that throughout human history people have always griped and complained about the ills of the current generation in comparison to one’s own.
On my recent hop and skip over to London, I picked up the February issue of British GQ. Within the glossy binding was a great editorial piece by Dorian Lynskey titled, “Stay Forever Young.” (It should be mentioned that I too reject the notion of wanting to stay young forever) The article was about how when we get older we stop discovering new music. This is often based on a nostalgic view of the music of the past, which prevents us from embracing new innovations and sounds. And middle-aged people aren’t necessarily talking about new music so there’s less excitement about the discovery. Lynskey writes:
“It’s easier, if you’ve fallen out of love with new music, to tell yourself that it’s not you, it’s them, so you clock every element that is familiar and downplay every bit that isn’t.”
I think this toxic nostalgia plays out on multiple levels as we age. (Example: In college we think the freshman are so lame and different from us, when in actuality we’re all still lamos)
The second alternative path (and if I have to pick one, I choose this) is to be the super nice old person who gives kids candy (in a non-creepy way). What’s wrong with this, you ask. The problem is that so often us younger folks treat the elders of the kinder variety as oh so helpless, removed from the current realities and too sweet to do anything for themselves. If these are the two alternatives, then maybe dying young isn’t so bad. (If there is a third option it might be the old person who tries to act too young for their age, which is just sad and therefore not a viable option for me or most humans)
Now you understand my frustration and sheer terror of growing old. Isn’t there any other alternative? The answer is yes. The older person I would like to be most like is Dr. Donald Suggs. He had an illustrious career as a dentist in St. Louis and now is the publisher of a highly influential and awarded newspaper in the city. As I worked as a reporter for the paper I saw that this man, in his eighties, hasn’t missed a single beat. He’s so smart and is so passionate about the African American community in St. Louis (and the city as a whole) that there is no way that he could fall into one of these lesser categories.
When I grow up I want to be passionate about things. I choose to travel the road of full coherence. I want to be active. (Not particularly physically because I can’t really call myself physically active now) I want to be working on something. I want to have new experiences. I want to still be going on dates with my old wife. (For the record: I will never make the mistake of calling my wife old) I want to still keep up with the news, be heavily involved in my church and know things about politics and film. I want to embrace my oldness and squeeze every ounce out of this thing called life.
So this blog post isn’t like most of the others that display my methodical use of wit, so for that I apologize. That being said, this is a topic I have wanted to comment on for a few weeks, but I didn’t quite have the proper experiential context to write about these things.
First, I will give you the background of that aforementioned experiential context. My team and I returned to Slovenia from a weekend in Budapest nearly a week ago. The Cru regional office has its headquarters in Budapest, so they invited the different missionary teams working in the region to a relaxing weekend and mini-conference in the Hungarian capital. On Sunday we accompanied the folks that invited us to church in the morning. The church was all in English, which admittedly, was very nice. That being said, because I didn’t know several of the songs I felt more lost during worship than at the church I attend in Slovenia where the songs are sung in Slovene.
Anyway, the pastor, an American, gave a wonderful advent-themed sermon focusing on an Isaiah passage that is a prophecy about the coming Messiah. The verse he preached from is familiar mostly because of the famous Christmas carol beginning with the words “For unto us a child is born.” The pastor’s message was really moving, especially his last part about the implications of Jesus being called the Everlasting Father. While the message was great, I took a major issue with one point. Thankfully it wasn’t a particularly spiritual or theological point, but more of a social one.
The pastor mentioned that, in his opinion, one thing that sets the West apart from other parts of the world is its spiritual foundations being based in Judeo-Christianity, which leads to an emphasis on certain values that set it apart from eastern cultures and makes the west particularly unique. He mentioned values such as individual rights and a “certain humanness.” It is with this point that I strongly disagree.
In his defense he did mention that this was his personal view and that everyone did not hold it. He mentioned that this point, though it is under attack, is very defensible. Defensible it may be, but it is my view that this view is fatally flawed.
My very first thought after the point was made was that I doubt black people (specifically African Americans) see it that way. The idea that our country, or the West, is founded upon Christian principles may be true, but principles are rendered useless and downright silly if not put in practice. So easily we, and by we I mean westerners, Americans and Christians, forget the history of this same West. First, let’s deal with slavery. Where were the Christian principles then? If our reliance upon these principles actually set us apart from the East, then how could such an ill have existed? And before we just say that this only reflects America, let’s be aware of the fact that many Western nations were involved in the kidnapping, transporting and selling of human beings for decades.
Rewind a bit and we see in our American history that this land we call home, was indeed, first the home of others whose descendants are still so widely displaced. So to expand on my initial thought, I doubt Native Americans see it that way.
I say this because of the pervasive idea of American Exceptionalism. Now, the pastor spoke more generally of the West, but I bring up American Exceptionalism specifically because it is a more defined ideology in the realm of political science. It is the idea that America is particularly exceptional in its makeup for many reasons. It should be mentioned that I agree America is exceptional, but I think Slovenia is exceptional in ways America is not. Hungary is exceptional in ways no other countries are. China is undeniably exceptional in many ways as well.
I don’t think it is our Christian principles that make us standout as the West. One of the most genuinely generous people I have ever met is not a Christian and not from the west. What we see in life is that a relationship with Christ is not necessary to be a “good person” based on normal standards. At the core of Christianity is the understanding that no one measures up to God’s standard of good and therefore there is a basic desperate need for Christ. What we see is that God is what produces change in us to do something as crazy as love our enemies as Jesus admonishes us to do. That’s not a normal thing to do and what we see throughout the history of my country is the deep struggle to even love people who look different, much less our staunch enemies.
The argument is made that I should forget about the ills of the past and move on. Just this week a political leader tweeted a ridiculous meme (word picture) suggesting that black people should stop moaning about how we’re owed a living because of slavery. First, I won’t forget about it or just get over it because that would be to erase the bit of history I even know about my ancestors. As I posted a picture of myself in Budapest a friend commented, almost instantaneously, that he is Hungarian. I joked that I too am Hungarian in my reply, but honestly I don’t have the luxury of knowing for certain if I am part Hungarian are not. (I highly doubt it) Secondly, as long as we can look at our history and make statements about the our “certain humaneness” that comes from the Christian principles we were founded upon, while ignoring the fact that those principles were so widely side-stepped, I will choose to look at history more holistically for all it is, both good and bad.
It is my deep desire that Christians would the people who view and think of history and social justice issues with the most critical awareness, but as I observe things this is not what I usually see. This doesn’t mean everyone should agree with me, but too often we fall into the trap viewing everything through the lens of politics and thus making only judgments based on the political party line.
Western Exceptionalism, Race and Christianity
December 20, 2013
Thoughts on Confidene
September 4, 2013
Lately I have been thinking about confidence as a concept and how it has played a role in my life.
The reason I have been thinking about it is because of the book I am currently about half-way through. Top of the Morning: Inside the Cutthroat World of Morning TV (pictured above) by Brian Stelter is about the career field that I have been excited to jump into since I was in high school. All I will say about the book is that it is particularly riveting for me to read, because a lot of what is discussed in the first 100 pages was happening either right before, during, or right after my internship at the Today Show. (Stelter even briefly mentioned the segment I was in when we rowed against the Princeton rowing team. I now consider myself one of the main characters in the book though I am not directly mentioned)
What strikes me most is how people talk about the on-air talent on shows like Today and Good Morning America. This is what causes my lack of confidence. Success in the TV business as an on-air journalist is so incredibly tied to the oftentimes ruthless opinions of the people watching the show. I often second guess my ability to be on-air. There's no doubt that I have so much to learn and just need a lot more practice, but I worry if I will ever be good enough to reach the heights I would like to reach, while an unforgiving public is watching. Success is based on things like your Q score, which is basically the public perception of you in your on-air role, and chemistry with your co-host. Part of me likes the cutthroat competitiveness of it all, but sometimes it's just downright terrifying. Stelter even suggests that one the biggest, if not the biggest, deciders for someone watching a morning show isn't content, but how well they like the talent.
It should be mentioned that I, like most people who are or want to be on-air in some capacity, do not have a self-esteem issue. I find myself to be rather likeable (Kidding... kind of). If anything, my closest friends and family will tell you that I am far too vain and into myself. (I hope my friends would also say that my ego has lessened over the years, but that being stated, I personally would like to improve in regards to humility)
I have been able to indentify times and instances, where I feel severely less confident. First, sports! I don't really mind lacking confidence in this because I have developed a strategy where sports is the only thing I am not competitive about. I enjoy playing sports, but as a general rule I let my opponent(s) know about their upcoming victory before we begin. So sports doesn't really count because I have chosen to be apathetic. Other games, on the other hand, will bring out the ungly side of me. I am competitive in all games from Connect Four to Settlers of Catan. (If you don't play Settlers, get hip!)
But back to those times when I truly lack confidence. I often lack self-confidence when I feel that others are smarter than me. When I go in with this belief of someone else, I second guess everything I say. I worry that my sense of humor won't be witty or high-brow enough. I worry that smarter people can somehow see through my superficiality. I shrink from debates and even competitive games. This lack of confidence in this situation is motivated by fear. I fear being made a fool of or that my own intellect will be appear small. This happened a lot in high school. There were a lot of really smart people that struck intellectual fear into my bones. I should mention that I didn't deal with this issue nearly as much in college. I will chock it up to my maturity, but other factors may be at play. This could be a good thing for Andrew as a journalist, because this fear could lead me to being a more fervent reasearcher/astute journalist in general.
The second identifiable instance I lacked confidence is more of a non-issue as of late and is directly related to immaturity. It is also more related to internal self-esteem issues. I realized that as a younger boy I felt inferior to others because of my race. To be clear, I never wanted to be anything other than African American, but I felt bogged down by the stigma of being a black male. This led to a deep desire for people to see me as separate. When people would consider me an anomoly of the black race I felt pride. This is a ridiculous view. I find it truly amazing that people can generalize any race of people negatively, but no matter how many people they see achieving or working to live life the best they can, they call that person an anomoly of their race. This of course, is not usually blatantly said, but it is effectively played out in attitudes. I no longer take pride in being someone else's anomoly to point to. I am confident because of my heritage. Black culture is strong and regal. We have a tough history of which we are still feeling the effects of to this day, but we aspire to move forward. I'm happy to say that I don't have a lack of confidence stemming from my race. It is something I love about myself and, because of our history, it gives me confidence.
What I want to be true of me, most of all, is that my confidence will not so much come from within myself but from my relationship with God.
Nowadays my lack of confidence stems from my fear of being unable to do what I really want. People have told me great things about my personality and ability to communicate. While I generally believe people (because my ego finds it easy to be aggreable in these situations), I take those things with a grain of salt. These days people tell kids that they're good at anything, which has spawned a ridiculous amount of wannabe singers that stink (That's another topic for another day). I think I'm good and I have seen improvement on-air, but I want to be better. But what happens if others, who don't know me, don't like what they see regardless of the content. That's my fear.