As a writer, it's my nature to seek an outlet to express my thoughts on subjects of interest to me. I approach the art of writing the same way a gardener takes to the landscape: you have to plant a seed (or develop an idea) before it can grow into a bouquet of flowers (or series of sentences).
Believe it or not, the two activities have a few things in common. Before those beautiful blossoms can decorate your lawn, you have to prune the area to separate the fresh bulbs from the dead weight. Such work is usually messy -- just like writing. From digging in the soil to digging in your soul, the effort you put forth will shape the final product ... and it'll either be one of superior or inferior quality. A physical affliction you'll experience is writer's cramp, and a mental obstacle you'll encounter is writer's block. These are endurance tests to see if you can hack it as a writer, since most people aren't cut out to do this as a hobby -- let alone for a living.
A gardener's worst nightmare is the sight of weeds on the lawn ... but a writer is his / her own worst nightmare. That's because you're your own worst critic, always looking for ways to improve a piece of writing or enhance a particular skill (e.g., research and reporting). To paraphrase playwright William Shakespeare, brevity is at the heart of all good writing.
I write because I feel I have something worthwhile to say and want to share it with an audience. I make an effort to be clear and concise because writing isn't the forum for one to spout off some crazy idea and not back it up with evidence. When I write, I don't know how the audience is going to react to my work ... but the only way to find out is to let them read it.
Writing is a craft where content and form are very important; yet, a lot of writing I read on the Internet is unprofessional. Media theorist Marshall McLuhan once said "the medium is the message" -- if that's true, the message is getting lost in a medium full of mistakes. From simple typos to bad formatting, sloppy writing is a poor reflection on the author: it shows a lack of discipline for the craft and a lack of respect for the reader. One thing I've learned from years of honing my skills is to never insult the intelligence of your audience.
For me, writing serves many purposes: it's a means of communication, a form of therapy, and a way of life. It's the one thing I know I'm good at, and I can never see myself not doing it. The process of having a thought form in my brain, sending an impulse that travels to my hand and forces me to put pen to paper, is a challenge I find exhilarating and exhausting. It's a work in progress, where you can always improve: after you accomplish a goal, you move on to the next one. The same thing goes for gardening: after you perform a task, you move on to the next one.
My parents think I'm crazy for pursuing a writing career, but I feel if I'm going to spend the next thirty years of my life working, it should be at something I love (or at least something I have an interest in). Granted, most writers never achieve the status of novelists like Stephen King or journalists like Bob Woodward ... but that's not why I write in the first place. I know writing isn't a glamorous, high-paying profession; most writers will live and die in obscurity. But as long as I'm doing what I love, I can live with that.
Publishing
Whether it's on paper or on the Internet, there are advantages and disadvantages to having your work published for the world to read. Seeing your byline in print may conjure up feelings of accomplishment and excitement ... but with those feelings also comes a sense of responsibility: to the mode of publication, to your audience, and to yourself.
In print publishing, the target audience is pre-determined ... and you don't have to market your skills, since the publication does that for you. If you wrote an article for Esquire, you'd write about a topic of interest to middle-aged men (say, 35- to 55-year-olds), since that's the magazine's target audience. Whatever subject you cover, you have to put a fresh spin on it and have readers relate to the content. On top of that, many companies buy advertising space in the magazine, providing your article with the potential to reach an even broader audience. However, getting your article published is anything but simple.
Unlike newspapers, which try to cloak themselves in a blanket of objectivity, magazines are openly biased in what -- and even whose -- work they will publish. Most magazines aren't going to take a chance on a writer unless he / she can enhance the magazine's ideology through his / her work. Esquire readers aren't interested in reading about female beauty tips, but in looking at beautiful women and learning what makes them tick. In other words, your article has to simultaneously provide information and fulfill a need.
Magazines are also slaves to advertisers -- their revenue pays staff salaries and often makes or breaks a publication -- so whatever they publish can't offend an advertiser's sensibilities. This affects not only the content you can write about, but also the audience to whom your article is addressed. For example, can ESPN: The Magazine promise its readers that it will provide unbiased coverage about the Atlanta Braves, since the baseball team uses spring training facilities owned by The Walt Disney Company? And will readers be bombarded with ads promoting ABC programs like Lost, since the network is also owned by Disney?
When it comes to online publishing, your target audience is the world. Anyone with a computer can create a Web page and publish his / her writing. Likewise, anyone with access to the Internet can read your work. But the best part is there's no middleman standing between the author and the audience -- thus, no one can interfere with the exchange of ideas and feedback between the two parties. However, such freedom also has its drawbacks.
With a worldwide audience, you have to be careful about what you publish. Since your work always stands the chance of being read by the wrong people, you have to read your work through a critical lens. Your use of language must be generic, so readers in New York and New Delhi (and all points in-between and beyond) can understand it. Furthermore, controversial subjects like child pornography must be approached with caution, especially on unrestricted Web sites where children are likely to visit.
Another downside to online publishing is its limited availability. Unlike bookstores, libraries, and newsstands, not everyone has access to the Internet. In general, articles have a long shelf life; they're a snapshot of time preserved for generations. Hyperlinks don't have that luxury because Web sites are added and deleted at such a fast rate. What may be a great online literary work one day may be a dead link the next.
Speaking of dead links, the Internet is a wonderful information tool ... but it also has plenty of garbage. Making your work stand out from other Web sites involves a high degree of marketing savvy. This can be an expensive, time-consuming process ... and if you're just a writer, not a businessperson, it may detract from your work.
When it comes to these two forms of publishing, whether or not they're a grudge match or a match made in heaven depends on the writer's intentions. If your goal is to gain a wide readership and make some money, print publishing is up your alley ... but if you want total control over writing and marketing your work, online publishing is more suitable.
In print publishing, the target audience is pre-determined ... and you don't have to market your skills, since the publication does that for you. If you wrote an article for Esquire, you'd write about a topic of interest to middle-aged men (say, 35- to 55-year-olds), since that's the magazine's target audience. Whatever subject you cover, you have to put a fresh spin on it and have readers relate to the content. On top of that, many companies buy advertising space in the magazine, providing your article with the potential to reach an even broader audience. However, getting your article published is anything but simple.
Unlike newspapers, which try to cloak themselves in a blanket of objectivity, magazines are openly biased in what -- and even whose -- work they will publish. Most magazines aren't going to take a chance on a writer unless he / she can enhance the magazine's ideology through his / her work. Esquire readers aren't interested in reading about female beauty tips, but in looking at beautiful women and learning what makes them tick. In other words, your article has to simultaneously provide information and fulfill a need.
Magazines are also slaves to advertisers -- their revenue pays staff salaries and often makes or breaks a publication -- so whatever they publish can't offend an advertiser's sensibilities. This affects not only the content you can write about, but also the audience to whom your article is addressed. For example, can ESPN: The Magazine promise its readers that it will provide unbiased coverage about the Atlanta Braves, since the baseball team uses spring training facilities owned by The Walt Disney Company? And will readers be bombarded with ads promoting ABC programs like Lost, since the network is also owned by Disney?
When it comes to online publishing, your target audience is the world. Anyone with a computer can create a Web page and publish his / her writing. Likewise, anyone with access to the Internet can read your work. But the best part is there's no middleman standing between the author and the audience -- thus, no one can interfere with the exchange of ideas and feedback between the two parties. However, such freedom also has its drawbacks.
With a worldwide audience, you have to be careful about what you publish. Since your work always stands the chance of being read by the wrong people, you have to read your work through a critical lens. Your use of language must be generic, so readers in New York and New Delhi (and all points in-between and beyond) can understand it. Furthermore, controversial subjects like child pornography must be approached with caution, especially on unrestricted Web sites where children are likely to visit.
Another downside to online publishing is its limited availability. Unlike bookstores, libraries, and newsstands, not everyone has access to the Internet. In general, articles have a long shelf life; they're a snapshot of time preserved for generations. Hyperlinks don't have that luxury because Web sites are added and deleted at such a fast rate. What may be a great online literary work one day may be a dead link the next.
Speaking of dead links, the Internet is a wonderful information tool ... but it also has plenty of garbage. Making your work stand out from other Web sites involves a high degree of marketing savvy. This can be an expensive, time-consuming process ... and if you're just a writer, not a businessperson, it may detract from your work.
When it comes to these two forms of publishing, whether or not they're a grudge match or a match made in heaven depends on the writer's intentions. If your goal is to gain a wide readership and make some money, print publishing is up your alley ... but if you want total control over writing and marketing your work, online publishing is more suitable.
Objectivity
Journalism is the art -- or science, depending on how a college classifies the subject -- of writing, editing, and distributing news for publication or broadcast. In theory, news organizations should present such information in an objective manner, taking a neutral position on the issues at all times. Reality, however, tells a different story.
According to communications scholar Michael Schudson, objectivity is the principle of separating facts from values. But facts, via the invention of propaganda, are used to support or dispute one's values -- thus, they’re intertwined ... and since facts are used to document illusion as well as truth, objectivity is an ideal that can never be achieved.
Whether in print, on radio, on television, or on the Internet, most people have an opinion on a given news topic, based on evidence known to them and their personal beliefs. But when one throws propaganda into the mix, bias takes precedence over facts. Labels like "liberal" and "conservative" are thrown into the dialogue like a red herring, politicizing an issue and obscuring the truth. In the meantime, the real issue gets lost in a sea of tangents. Using such mechanisms in a news story fly in the face of objectivity.
This problem can be traced back to how the lines that once separated advertising, journalism, and public relations have now become blurred. While all three industries are aimed at reaching a mass audience, advertising is in the business of selling a product ... and public relations is in the business of selling a client's image (although, if one thinks about it, a client's image is a product).
Bill O'Reilly, host of the Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor, pointed out in a Court TV interview with Catherine Crier in 2000 that the biggest sign of objectivity's demise was when publicists started dictating to journalists the terms under which their clients could be interviewed. "Too many news programs have become public relations-friendly," he said, naming shows like CNN's Larry King Live as an example.
As for advertising, their revenue is the backbone for many news organizations; without it, these outlets wouldn't be in business. Such an arrangement is rife with potential conflicts of interest, which benefits the few and hurts the masses. (Think Time Warner and Disney, who proposed a merger of news resources between CNN and ABC in 2002.) When the almighty dollar influences the kind of news being presented to an audience, that also flies in the face of objectivity.
These conflicts are at the heart of what is news. It's defined as information on recent happenings ... but Neil Postman would say otherwise. In his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, the communications theorist argues that today's news organizations have turned news into "infotainment," presenting its audience with blurbs and sound bites instead of useful information that can actually be applied to one's life.
The way Postman sees it, news no longer has any relationship to its audience because "the value of information (wasn't) tied to any function it might serve in (one's) social and political decision-making (process)." Elaborating on this point, he said "the abundant flow of information had little or nothing to do with those to whom it was addressed -- it was just new." If that's the case, news and information are hardly synonymous, because the latter concerns itself with quality and relevance, while the former is bogged down in quantity and novelty.
Speaking of novelty, the concept of objectivity was a novel idea. It served as a model for journalists to do their job of asking who, what, when, where, why, and how, as well as analyzing the answers within a broader context. However, they're also human, and are subjective by nature -- not objective.
People interpret events that shape their lives through prisms of personal beliefs and life experiences. When a story is being edited, it's evaluated according to a series of do's and don'ts (e.g., do tell the truth ... but don't offend an advertiser's sensibilities) between the time it's submitted for publication / broadcast and the time it's presented to an audience. As the following scenario shows, the "subjective" reporting occurs beforehand.
Thirty news outlets attend a press conference or are present at a photo opportunity event. In all likelihood, the reporters won't have the same set of notes -- nor will the photojournalists take the exact same picture. That's because each reporter jots down information he / she thinks is worth sharing with its audience ... and each photojournalist takes a picture from a slightly different angle, based on where he / she is positioned.
In many ways, objectivity was a self-fulfilling prophecy for news organizations, because if all print, broadcast, and online outlets presented a story in the same format, they were being "objective." After all, journalists use similar news sources (i.e., publicists and press secretaries) and follow each other's lead (to make sure they're not outscooped on a story). Unfortunately, though, the influence public relations firms, advertisers, and corporate executives now have over news content has rendered objectivity an obsolete concept.
According to communications scholar Michael Schudson, objectivity is the principle of separating facts from values. But facts, via the invention of propaganda, are used to support or dispute one's values -- thus, they’re intertwined ... and since facts are used to document illusion as well as truth, objectivity is an ideal that can never be achieved.
Whether in print, on radio, on television, or on the Internet, most people have an opinion on a given news topic, based on evidence known to them and their personal beliefs. But when one throws propaganda into the mix, bias takes precedence over facts. Labels like "liberal" and "conservative" are thrown into the dialogue like a red herring, politicizing an issue and obscuring the truth. In the meantime, the real issue gets lost in a sea of tangents. Using such mechanisms in a news story fly in the face of objectivity.
This problem can be traced back to how the lines that once separated advertising, journalism, and public relations have now become blurred. While all three industries are aimed at reaching a mass audience, advertising is in the business of selling a product ... and public relations is in the business of selling a client's image (although, if one thinks about it, a client's image is a product).
Bill O'Reilly, host of the Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor, pointed out in a Court TV interview with Catherine Crier in 2000 that the biggest sign of objectivity's demise was when publicists started dictating to journalists the terms under which their clients could be interviewed. "Too many news programs have become public relations-friendly," he said, naming shows like CNN's Larry King Live as an example.
As for advertising, their revenue is the backbone for many news organizations; without it, these outlets wouldn't be in business. Such an arrangement is rife with potential conflicts of interest, which benefits the few and hurts the masses. (Think Time Warner and Disney, who proposed a merger of news resources between CNN and ABC in 2002.) When the almighty dollar influences the kind of news being presented to an audience, that also flies in the face of objectivity.
These conflicts are at the heart of what is news. It's defined as information on recent happenings ... but Neil Postman would say otherwise. In his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, the communications theorist argues that today's news organizations have turned news into "infotainment," presenting its audience with blurbs and sound bites instead of useful information that can actually be applied to one's life.
The way Postman sees it, news no longer has any relationship to its audience because "the value of information (wasn't) tied to any function it might serve in (one's) social and political decision-making (process)." Elaborating on this point, he said "the abundant flow of information had little or nothing to do with those to whom it was addressed -- it was just new." If that's the case, news and information are hardly synonymous, because the latter concerns itself with quality and relevance, while the former is bogged down in quantity and novelty.
Speaking of novelty, the concept of objectivity was a novel idea. It served as a model for journalists to do their job of asking who, what, when, where, why, and how, as well as analyzing the answers within a broader context. However, they're also human, and are subjective by nature -- not objective.
People interpret events that shape their lives through prisms of personal beliefs and life experiences. When a story is being edited, it's evaluated according to a series of do's and don'ts (e.g., do tell the truth ... but don't offend an advertiser's sensibilities) between the time it's submitted for publication / broadcast and the time it's presented to an audience. As the following scenario shows, the "subjective" reporting occurs beforehand.
Thirty news outlets attend a press conference or are present at a photo opportunity event. In all likelihood, the reporters won't have the same set of notes -- nor will the photojournalists take the exact same picture. That's because each reporter jots down information he / she thinks is worth sharing with its audience ... and each photojournalist takes a picture from a slightly different angle, based on where he / she is positioned.
In many ways, objectivity was a self-fulfilling prophecy for news organizations, because if all print, broadcast, and online outlets presented a story in the same format, they were being "objective." After all, journalists use similar news sources (i.e., publicists and press secretaries) and follow each other's lead (to make sure they're not outscooped on a story). Unfortunately, though, the influence public relations firms, advertisers, and corporate executives now have over news content has rendered objectivity an obsolete concept.
Communication
Communication, verbal and nonverbal, is the lifeline of society. It has many uses, from being a means of expression to a form of therapy. Most important, though, verbal and nonverbal communication shapes one's behavior and thought patterns.
In the case of a telephone conversation, we humans have one (or more) on a daily basis -- whether it's with the next-door neighbor or a co-worker. However, what we say is often overshadowed by how we say it ... and with old-fashioned manners becoming a thing of the past, telephone rudeness is on the rise.
On many occasions, I've been on the receiving end of rude messages. (In fairness, I've also dished them out.) One such experience occurred while I was working as an intern at Clifford Public Relations in 2000. I'd contacted an editor from the Denver Rocky Mountain News to verify some information, and her frustration ended up giving birth to callousness. In the course of five minutes, I learned how exasperating it is for her to receive so many telephone calls on a daily basis. She said she wasn't going to do my job for me -- not that I wanted her to -- and I shouldn't take her tongue-lashing personally.
After letting her vent -- she eventually hung up on me -- I thought about why she acted the way she did. The most obvious answer is because she doesn't know me. As strangers, we don't necessarily owe each other the common courtesy we extend to fellow acquaintances. In those situations, those people talk to each other in a civil tone and behave in a cordial manner. But with strangers, we can speak rudely and not give it a second thought because, in all likelihood, we'll never cross paths again. One may feel a twinge of guilt for not abiding by the Golden Rule ... but that feeling eventually subsides, especially if the encounter wasn't of much significance (e.g., dealing with aggressive telemarketers).
While our not knowing each other may have played a role in the communication debacle, the real reason I think she behaved so badly was because we weren't speaking to each other face-to-face. According to communication researchers Judith Hall and Mark Knapp, when two people face each other, they send out signals about one's attitude, feelings, and personality. In their book, Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction, they discuss its importance in helping one get his / her message across.
During my conversation with the editor, she projected a nasty disposition toward me without ever looking me in the eyes. Instead, she used her voice to convey her status (she was in a position to verify some information I needed), dominance (she did most of the talking, cutting me off and raising her voice whenever I spoke), and power (she ended the conversation).
In hindsight, the editor was probably having a bad day or I might have called her at a bad time. While I didn't do anything to provoke her rudeness, it was clear the conversation was doomed to end on a sour note. I received signals about her attitude, feelings, and personality -- all without ever having met her face-to-face. I wasn't pleased about how she acted toward me, but I decided to follow her advice and not take it personally.
Telephone rudeness affects not only how we deal with outsiders, but also those close to us. Most people try to live by the Golden Rule -- yet, that rule goes out the window when it comes to showing common courtesy toward one another. In the future, a clear distinction needs to be made between the message one sends and how that message is to be received, for it affects communication as a whole -- verbal as well as nonverbal.
In the case of a telephone conversation, we humans have one (or more) on a daily basis -- whether it's with the next-door neighbor or a co-worker. However, what we say is often overshadowed by how we say it ... and with old-fashioned manners becoming a thing of the past, telephone rudeness is on the rise.
On many occasions, I've been on the receiving end of rude messages. (In fairness, I've also dished them out.) One such experience occurred while I was working as an intern at Clifford Public Relations in 2000. I'd contacted an editor from the Denver Rocky Mountain News to verify some information, and her frustration ended up giving birth to callousness. In the course of five minutes, I learned how exasperating it is for her to receive so many telephone calls on a daily basis. She said she wasn't going to do my job for me -- not that I wanted her to -- and I shouldn't take her tongue-lashing personally.
After letting her vent -- she eventually hung up on me -- I thought about why she acted the way she did. The most obvious answer is because she doesn't know me. As strangers, we don't necessarily owe each other the common courtesy we extend to fellow acquaintances. In those situations, those people talk to each other in a civil tone and behave in a cordial manner. But with strangers, we can speak rudely and not give it a second thought because, in all likelihood, we'll never cross paths again. One may feel a twinge of guilt for not abiding by the Golden Rule ... but that feeling eventually subsides, especially if the encounter wasn't of much significance (e.g., dealing with aggressive telemarketers).
While our not knowing each other may have played a role in the communication debacle, the real reason I think she behaved so badly was because we weren't speaking to each other face-to-face. According to communication researchers Judith Hall and Mark Knapp, when two people face each other, they send out signals about one's attitude, feelings, and personality. In their book, Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction, they discuss its importance in helping one get his / her message across.
During my conversation with the editor, she projected a nasty disposition toward me without ever looking me in the eyes. Instead, she used her voice to convey her status (she was in a position to verify some information I needed), dominance (she did most of the talking, cutting me off and raising her voice whenever I spoke), and power (she ended the conversation).
In hindsight, the editor was probably having a bad day or I might have called her at a bad time. While I didn't do anything to provoke her rudeness, it was clear the conversation was doomed to end on a sour note. I received signals about her attitude, feelings, and personality -- all without ever having met her face-to-face. I wasn't pleased about how she acted toward me, but I decided to follow her advice and not take it personally.
Telephone rudeness affects not only how we deal with outsiders, but also those close to us. Most people try to live by the Golden Rule -- yet, that rule goes out the window when it comes to showing common courtesy toward one another. In the future, a clear distinction needs to be made between the message one sends and how that message is to be received, for it affects communication as a whole -- verbal as well as nonverbal.
Celebrity
Celebrity. It's the one word that combines fame with fortune. Its mention conjures up feelings of accomplishment and excitement. It's the one status symbol everybody -- to some degree -- aspires to have. It's also one of the factors contributing to America's misplaced priorities.
When a person is asked to name his / her role model, he / she is most likely to name a celebrity -- whether it's an actor, athlete, or musician. While it's a role some of them take seriously, it's not necessarily a role they should take on in the first place. That's because a role model is someone you interact with on a regular basis. A role model is someone who knows and supports your interests ... and, even more important, has your best interests at heart. A role model is someone who not only enriches your life, but also makes positive contributions to society. A role model isn't likely to be seen on television or heard on the radio because he / she is right in front of you: parents, relatives, neighbors, teachers, clergy, or even fellow peers.
Many years ago, Charles Barkley appeared in a Nike commercial, telling the world he isn't paid to be a role model. While his point is well-taken, people look to celebrities as role models for various reasons. They're seen as the ones who beat the odds to achieve success, blessed with a special talent that brings joy to people's lives. A musician's album is the soundtrack of a person's life at a specific time (e.g., adolescence), an actor's television show is the snapshot of an ideal world (e.g., The Cosby Show), and an athlete's physical feats are a metaphor for unlimited possibilities (e.g., Michael Jordan). In other words, these celebrities have what we want: the ability to make one dream of a better life ... and inspiring one to turn that dream into reality.
Speaking of life, people also idolize celebrities because they're perceived as being larger than life. They lead extravagant lives in their condominiums and mansions, throwing exclusive parties and hanging out with industry power players. They can afford the best of everything, traveling to places and doing things the average person can only dream about. Furthermore, their faces are plastered on magazine covers and advertising billboards, perpetuating a lifestyle of excess and selling that image to everyday folks. All of these things may be good ... but they come at a price.
Just as fame and fortune come along with being a celebrity, so does a loss of privacy. Everyday activities and special occasions become "media events" -- which was the case when Princess Diana and her boyfriend, Dodi Al Fayed, were on a date in Paris in 1997. They were enjoying an evening of each other's company when the paparazzi started harassing them, which set off a car chase ... and ultimately led to their deaths in a car crash. (According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, paprazzi are freelance photographers who aggressively pursue celebrities for the sake of taking candid pictures.) A far less tragic example of a "media event" is the wedding of actors Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones.
When the couple announced their nuptial plans in 2000, they surprised many people by revealing an unorthodox method of media coverage for the ceremony. Instead of having to worry about paparazzi crashing their wedding, they sold the photos to a British publication, OK! Magazine, for approximately $1 million. This can be viewed two ways: they beat the paparazzi at their own game, taking whatever money the photographers would've made and keeping it for themselves ... or it was a publicity stunt that turned a private affair into a public spectacle, for it didn't deter the media from covering the event -- which is what they may have wanted all along.
Contrary to popular belief, celebrities are no different from the people who admire them. Instead of putting them on a pedestal to worship, remember that they're human beings with character flaws ... and while they may embody an image of perfection, know that they're far from perfect. By no means are celebrities and role models mutually exclusive entities, because while the former play a role in shaping the media, the latter are a source of inspiration -- nothing more, nothing less. Understanding the difference between these two groups of people will help one see the truly important things in life. With any luck, fame and fortune aren't at the top of the list.
When a person is asked to name his / her role model, he / she is most likely to name a celebrity -- whether it's an actor, athlete, or musician. While it's a role some of them take seriously, it's not necessarily a role they should take on in the first place. That's because a role model is someone you interact with on a regular basis. A role model is someone who knows and supports your interests ... and, even more important, has your best interests at heart. A role model is someone who not only enriches your life, but also makes positive contributions to society. A role model isn't likely to be seen on television or heard on the radio because he / she is right in front of you: parents, relatives, neighbors, teachers, clergy, or even fellow peers.
Many years ago, Charles Barkley appeared in a Nike commercial, telling the world he isn't paid to be a role model. While his point is well-taken, people look to celebrities as role models for various reasons. They're seen as the ones who beat the odds to achieve success, blessed with a special talent that brings joy to people's lives. A musician's album is the soundtrack of a person's life at a specific time (e.g., adolescence), an actor's television show is the snapshot of an ideal world (e.g., The Cosby Show), and an athlete's physical feats are a metaphor for unlimited possibilities (e.g., Michael Jordan). In other words, these celebrities have what we want: the ability to make one dream of a better life ... and inspiring one to turn that dream into reality.
Speaking of life, people also idolize celebrities because they're perceived as being larger than life. They lead extravagant lives in their condominiums and mansions, throwing exclusive parties and hanging out with industry power players. They can afford the best of everything, traveling to places and doing things the average person can only dream about. Furthermore, their faces are plastered on magazine covers and advertising billboards, perpetuating a lifestyle of excess and selling that image to everyday folks. All of these things may be good ... but they come at a price.
Just as fame and fortune come along with being a celebrity, so does a loss of privacy. Everyday activities and special occasions become "media events" -- which was the case when Princess Diana and her boyfriend, Dodi Al Fayed, were on a date in Paris in 1997. They were enjoying an evening of each other's company when the paparazzi started harassing them, which set off a car chase ... and ultimately led to their deaths in a car crash. (According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, paprazzi are freelance photographers who aggressively pursue celebrities for the sake of taking candid pictures.) A far less tragic example of a "media event" is the wedding of actors Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones.
When the couple announced their nuptial plans in 2000, they surprised many people by revealing an unorthodox method of media coverage for the ceremony. Instead of having to worry about paparazzi crashing their wedding, they sold the photos to a British publication, OK! Magazine, for approximately $1 million. This can be viewed two ways: they beat the paparazzi at their own game, taking whatever money the photographers would've made and keeping it for themselves ... or it was a publicity stunt that turned a private affair into a public spectacle, for it didn't deter the media from covering the event -- which is what they may have wanted all along.
Contrary to popular belief, celebrities are no different from the people who admire them. Instead of putting them on a pedestal to worship, remember that they're human beings with character flaws ... and while they may embody an image of perfection, know that they're far from perfect. By no means are celebrities and role models mutually exclusive entities, because while the former play a role in shaping the media, the latter are a source of inspiration -- nothing more, nothing less. Understanding the difference between these two groups of people will help one see the truly important things in life. With any luck, fame and fortune aren't at the top of the list.
The Heart Is A Lonely Job Hunter
The two of you are sitting across from a table, looking at each other. Your hands feel clammy from perspiration brought on by the awkward silence that now fills the room ... and you're not sure if you have the attributes that will get the telephone call -- and the accompanying invitation -- from the other person within the next few days. Such thoughts make you shift your weight from one foot to the other to calm those pangs of nervousness now jumping around in your stomach....
The above paragraph is an all-too-common experience for people who not only go out for job interviews, but also on first dates. These two situations have many things in common, including what to wear and how to behave ... but the real connection is they're both a mutual exchange of information where both parties can learn more about each other.
Before you do research on a potential employer / significant other, you should do a self-evaluation. Know what strengths (and weaknesses) you bring to the respective partnership, what goals you hope to accomplish through the partnership, and -- most important -- how to effectively communicate those wants and needs. Remember, you're selling yourself as a package that can contribute to the other party's big picture.
After assessing your own qualities, assess those of the other party. Learn as much as possible about the employer / significant other before the "meeting." For the employer, find out what kind of service they provide, how long they've been in business, and if the size of the company is to your liking. This can be done by simply browsing through their Web site before the interview. As for the significant other, ask about his / her hobbies, aspirations, and idiosyncrasies. Such information is usually obtained in the "pre-date" conversation, the telephone call that occurs before the date.
Dressing for the occasion is probably the easiest part of preparing for the "meeting." Common sense dictates what you wear -- your outfit should be appropriate for the environment where the interview / date occurs. For the interview, a professional wardrobe (i.e., a dress or blouse and skirt / slacks for ladies; a three-piece suit or dress shirt and slacks for guys) always works best ... but for a date, you can be more casual. If it's a picnic and billiards, don't wear nightclub apparel ... and if it's a movie and bowling, don't show up in formal attire.
When you go for the interview, you're looking to play an active role in that company's future. Likewise, when you go on a date, you're hoping to be a major part of that person's future. The conversation should reflect an interest on both parties' parts. Ask and answer questions accordingly; the purpose of getting together is to exchange information -- not stare at each other. Put your best foot forward and highlight your good traits (while downplaying your bad ones), explaining what separates you from the rest of the pack. Find out if you're a good fit for the employer / significant other ... and, just as important, find out if the employer / significant other is a good fit for you!
Assuming all goes well, you'll receive an invitation to join the company's staff or go out on a second date. You'll work for many years, about forty hours a week, with a record of accomplishments to show for the time you put in as an employee -- not to mention a pension plan and a house in the suburbs. Relationships aren't any different: you have to invest time and effort if anything good is to come out of it. Just like a work-oriented relationship, you want something to show for the time you and your significant other have spent together -- such as a lifetime commitment and a bundle of joy. Unfortunately, though, fantasy doesn't always equal reality.
In all likelihood, you'll go through several interviews / dates before finding the job / person of your dreams. You'll even have to take a few jobs you hate before making a living at what you love ... and date several losers before finding your soul mate. Think of the bad experiences as preparation for life in the real world; few people get lucky the first time around. If that doesn't help, know that those bad experiences make you appreciate the good ones even more. That's what life -- job interviews and first dates included -- is all about.
The above paragraph is an all-too-common experience for people who not only go out for job interviews, but also on first dates. These two situations have many things in common, including what to wear and how to behave ... but the real connection is they're both a mutual exchange of information where both parties can learn more about each other.
Before you do research on a potential employer / significant other, you should do a self-evaluation. Know what strengths (and weaknesses) you bring to the respective partnership, what goals you hope to accomplish through the partnership, and -- most important -- how to effectively communicate those wants and needs. Remember, you're selling yourself as a package that can contribute to the other party's big picture.
After assessing your own qualities, assess those of the other party. Learn as much as possible about the employer / significant other before the "meeting." For the employer, find out what kind of service they provide, how long they've been in business, and if the size of the company is to your liking. This can be done by simply browsing through their Web site before the interview. As for the significant other, ask about his / her hobbies, aspirations, and idiosyncrasies. Such information is usually obtained in the "pre-date" conversation, the telephone call that occurs before the date.
Dressing for the occasion is probably the easiest part of preparing for the "meeting." Common sense dictates what you wear -- your outfit should be appropriate for the environment where the interview / date occurs. For the interview, a professional wardrobe (i.e., a dress or blouse and skirt / slacks for ladies; a three-piece suit or dress shirt and slacks for guys) always works best ... but for a date, you can be more casual. If it's a picnic and billiards, don't wear nightclub apparel ... and if it's a movie and bowling, don't show up in formal attire.
When you go for the interview, you're looking to play an active role in that company's future. Likewise, when you go on a date, you're hoping to be a major part of that person's future. The conversation should reflect an interest on both parties' parts. Ask and answer questions accordingly; the purpose of getting together is to exchange information -- not stare at each other. Put your best foot forward and highlight your good traits (while downplaying your bad ones), explaining what separates you from the rest of the pack. Find out if you're a good fit for the employer / significant other ... and, just as important, find out if the employer / significant other is a good fit for you!
Assuming all goes well, you'll receive an invitation to join the company's staff or go out on a second date. You'll work for many years, about forty hours a week, with a record of accomplishments to show for the time you put in as an employee -- not to mention a pension plan and a house in the suburbs. Relationships aren't any different: you have to invest time and effort if anything good is to come out of it. Just like a work-oriented relationship, you want something to show for the time you and your significant other have spent together -- such as a lifetime commitment and a bundle of joy. Unfortunately, though, fantasy doesn't always equal reality.
In all likelihood, you'll go through several interviews / dates before finding the job / person of your dreams. You'll even have to take a few jobs you hate before making a living at what you love ... and date several losers before finding your soul mate. Think of the bad experiences as preparation for life in the real world; few people get lucky the first time around. If that doesn't help, know that those bad experiences make you appreciate the good ones even more. That's what life -- job interviews and first dates included -- is all about.
The Heart Is A Lonely Job Hunter (Sidebar)
I explored the positive and negative aspects of job interviews and first dates in "The Heart Is a Lonely Job Hunter." While that position paper was about drawing similarities between the two situations and how to make the most of them, this sidebar is about understanding the idea of networking just to get an interview / date.
In both scenarios, you have to make yourself stand out from the rest of the competition -- on a professional level as well as a personal one. Job fairs and singles mixers are two gatherings where you have the best chance to pull this off; for the people in attendance, it's the means to achieving an end -- whether it's landing a job or meeting a significant other. The most important tool in fulfilling this goal is the skill of networking.
You have a better chance of being noticed if you're poised and well-spoken. Making an effort to meet people and start a conversation will catch the attention of others ... and, as a result, they'll be lining up to introduce themselves to you -- not vice versa. On the other hand, standing in a corner looking like you're mad at the world won't draw people to you -- in fact, it'll scare them away.
At a job fair, you'd exchange resumes and / or business cards with the prospective employer ... and at a singles mixer, you'd exchange telephone numbers with the potential date. In keeping with the "professional" tone of the subject matter, here's a "singles" resume and business card for unattached people like yourself. Who knows, it might land you that dream job -- oops, I mean dream date -- you're looking for.
In both scenarios, you have to make yourself stand out from the rest of the competition -- on a professional level as well as a personal one. Job fairs and singles mixers are two gatherings where you have the best chance to pull this off; for the people in attendance, it's the means to achieving an end -- whether it's landing a job or meeting a significant other. The most important tool in fulfilling this goal is the skill of networking.
You have a better chance of being noticed if you're poised and well-spoken. Making an effort to meet people and start a conversation will catch the attention of others ... and, as a result, they'll be lining up to introduce themselves to you -- not vice versa. On the other hand, standing in a corner looking like you're mad at the world won't draw people to you -- in fact, it'll scare them away.
At a job fair, you'd exchange resumes and / or business cards with the prospective employer ... and at a singles mixer, you'd exchange telephone numbers with the potential date. In keeping with the "professional" tone of the subject matter, here's a "singles" resume and business card for unattached people like yourself. Who knows, it might land you that dream job -- oops, I mean dream date -- you're looking for.
Singles Resume
Your Name
Your Address
Your Telephone Number
Your E-mail Address
OBJECTIVE: To meet someone who's honest, thoughtful, attractive, funny, employed, knows right from wrong, and isn't into playing games.
EXPERIENCE: Have been involved in a few relationships, short-term and / or long-term.
DESCRIPTION: (Describe yourself.) I enjoy going out for a night on the town rather than being out for the count on the couch. I've never been considered by my peers or ex-boy / girlfriends to be an obsessive freak (or any other derogatory term).
REFERENCES: Available upon request.
Your Address
Your Telephone Number
Your E-mail Address
OBJECTIVE: To meet someone who's honest, thoughtful, attractive, funny, employed, knows right from wrong, and isn't into playing games.
EXPERIENCE: Have been involved in a few relationships, short-term and / or long-term.
DESCRIPTION: (Describe yourself.) I enjoy going out for a night on the town rather than being out for the count on the couch. I've never been considered by my peers or ex-boy / girlfriends to be an obsessive freak (or any other derogatory term).
REFERENCES: Available upon request.
Singles Business Card
I admire you from afar, but was hoping to bridge this distance between us. I'd appreciate it if you'd provide me with your
Name:
Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Name:
Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)