What I Learned from Benny Blanco

Confession: I had never heard of this guy, but here he was, as I’m watching my favorite morning show, “CBS Sunday Morning.” Actually, I was barely watching, mainly listening while in the kitchen brewing coffee.

But then…

Benny Blanco, of all people of whom I’ve never heard, caught my attention. Yup, this 38-year-old man had something to teach this 73-year-old curmudgeon.

Imagine that.

Let’s start with the title of his book: F*ck Failure. I was intrigued by the title (who wouldn’t be?), but also by its implicit message.

Actually, I eventually learned that the message was pretty direct: failure, according to Blanco, only happens when you fail to say “yes” to an opportunity that’s right in front of you.

There are many reasons why, says Blanco. One of the biggest is fear of failing, the “what if I fail,” rather than the “what if I succeed” approach to one’s career, that can actually be applied to one’s approach to life.

Then he added the one “note” that really made me think.

It was a piece of advice from his own life that was both simple and complex. As he failed over and over again, he just kept going.

He worked harder and, well, smarter. And he didn’t stop. He just kept going.

Eventually he noticed that there weren’t as many competitors in his field as there once were. Many, he began to notice, had fallen by the way side. By contrast, he had kept moving forward.

Where were all those, once everywhere, who were now nowhere to be seen or found?

He reasoned that they had given up. Maybe out of fear of failure. Maybe for monetary reasons. Maybe for a million other reasons, but they had given up where he had not.

It made me think about my own career trajectory. First, it was radio, then television, then academia. At each stage of each career, I never believed I was the smartest or most talented guy among the many others around me.

But I just kept going, picking up on cues by others, learning not only from their mistakes, but also my own.

To call me an overachiever would be a fair characterization, but persistent and pernicious might be closer to the truth.

When I started in my first tenure-track academic job, I was afraid I’d fail. Because the tenure system is so heavily weighted toward publication, especially in peer reviewed research journals.

I recall asking the dean who hired me, “how many publications are needed to gain tenure?” He looked at me and said something I’ll never forget: “That depends. If we want to tenure you, it’s ‘X.’ If we don’t, it’s “X+1.”

In my nearly four decades in higher education, I never again heard a more honest, transparent answer from an academic. And I never forgot it.

I set out to be the “+1.” As years went on (it takes up to seven to become a tenured professor), I noticed that there were fewer faculty members still around the university. Sometimes I’d ask, “what happened to Bob or Barbara?”

The answer, as I now look back, was often some variation of “they gave up.”

It reminds me now of the greeting from the dean of our daughter’s law school on day one. “Look to your left and look to your right,” he told the assembled first year students. “At least one won’t be here in two years.”

The gamechanger? It’s exactly what Benny Blanco figured out. It’s, at base, a version of Darwinism, with one exception: those on our left and right aren’t predetermined by their origins, but by their will.

The will to accept we will fail.

The will to learn when we do.

The will to stick around.

The will to move forward.

The will to say yes.

The will to reject no.

There’s a lot a 38-year-old rapper/music producer/non-college grad can teach a college professor.

And this one has.

Expectations

“There would have been outrage.” That was the first sentence of a guest column I wrote in 2010 for the then St. Petersburg Times. Unfortunately, between the newspaper’s transition to the Tampa Bay Times and a massive makeover in design and direction, the digital version of that opinion piece no longer exists, relegated to the “404, file not found” domain where old writing goes to die.

And, like so many writers, I don’t always hold onto or even value, stuff I wrote many years ago during my so-called youth, in this instance 16 years ago.

But that sentence–“there would have been outrage”—kept echoing in my head this morning, long beyond what I can even recall what provoked my call for outrage all those years ago.

The best I can remember, it had something to do with low or no expectations surrounding the education of our young people, possibly prompted by funding cuts, potentially motivated by a misguided belief in the “there’s nothing you can do when some people are just doomed to fail” mentality.

Maybe it’s the soaring price of home heating oil or the cost of filling our cars with liquid gold gasoline that got me thinking about a time when Americans would have pushed back against a philosophy rooted in ill-begotten gains by some and the creed that others are where they are because they don’t deserve more than they have.

It seemed to me it’s time to renew our commitment as a nation to outrage. America, after all, was, in part, founded on outrage. Those who separated from England were outraged by a system that taxed them unfairly and assumed they would quickly be subjugated to the will of the crown.

The king didn’t consider the outrage factor.

And we know how that ended.

It made me think that maybe 250 years later our current leaders also are blind to the coming outrage, if it’s coming at all.

And it should.

Outrage only happens because expectations aren’t realized: expectations of those elected to public service, not self-service. Expectations of one another as Americans, not red or blue, nor even red, white, and blue, but the expectation that WE are Americans and we ALL deserve more.

Expectations lead to accountability, both of ourselves and of others. Our government is no exception.

We get what we expect and we should expect more.

Absent expectations, outrage fills the void. Sometimes it must and it should—at least until fairness, equality and justice regain their proper place. That’s how change happens.

Expectations.

It’s a noun.

It should be a verb.

Kindly Lent Their Owner

Twenty-five years ago I found myself in the most unlikely place for an art gallery: Las Vegas’ Bellagio Hotel. If you’ve ever been to Las Vegas, you know that its primary attractions do not include art galleries; this specific hotel is known for its musical fountain show and nearly nine acre man-made lake: smack in the middle of a desert, no less.

Still, I was intrigued by the art collection in this majestic, albeit somewhat gaudy, setting. It featured the private art collection of Steve Martin–you know him as the comedian, Saturday Night Live alumnus, and musician (he plays one hell of a banjo and has garnered a Grammy award for that talent).

Even more so, I was intrigued by the exhibition’s title: “Kindly Let Their Owner,” so much so that I bought the accompanying catalogue, not only to remember the visit, but the title. “Kindly Lent Their Owner” intrigued me at the time and does this day; I even looked up its origin these 25 years later.

A quick AI assisted search revealed that the phrase is “a clever spin on the standard museum credit line, “Kindly lent by their owners,” as well as having its origin in the nineteenth-century artist James Whistler (he of “Whistler’s Mother”) cracking a joke when leaving out the word “by” in order to suggest that all artwork is simply ours for now, passing through our hands, temporarily , until it ultimately becomes the property of others once we are gone. The artwork is timeless (how often have you heard that phrase?), but our ownership of it is temporal. We are its current owners, but it ultimately is not ours to keep.

That got me thinking.

What do I think I “own?”  Is it a house? Is it a car? How about everything in that house or in that car?  Is it really mine or “kindly lent?”

I remember many years ago when our son was young he and I were outside on the rear deck of our rural Rhode Island home, pondering the heavily treed forest, beneath a highly lit sky. Corey, my son, turned to me and said “did you ever think about how that tree,” pointing to one majestic oak in particular, “is yours, that you own it?” 

I had a flashback to Las Vegas, a place that could not possibly be more different from where I stood at that moment, and the art collection I’d seen there.

We then, father and son, went on to talk about how this house, like all of the New England town in which we live, was built on Native American land. We are merely entrusted, for now, with its ownership. The trees themselves, the soil, the rocks, the animals and their descendants, all existed here hundreds, if not thousands, of years before us. They were being lent to us. the “owners,” until such time as they are “lent” to someone else.

In a time when so much focuses on what “we” own–whether individually or as a nation–“Kindly Lent Their Owner” presents a lesson, at least it does to me and, I hope, to you.  Another great comedian and social commentator, George Carlin (ironically, I once saw him perform in Las Vegas–maybe the town has educational value, after all!) had a routine he called “Stuff.” It went something like this:

A house is just a pile of stuff with a cover on it. You can see that when you’re taking off in an airplane. You look down, you see everybody’s got a little pile of stuff. All the little piles of stuff. And when you leave your house, you gotta lock it up. Wouldn’t want somebody to come by and take some of your stuff. They always take the good stuff. They never bother with that crap you’re saving. All they want is the shiny stuff. That’s what your house is, a place to keep your stuff while you go out and get…more stuff!

That stuck with me when a close friend, and fabulous musician, named Jimmy Berger and I wrote a song last year titled “Gratitude.”  I penned the lyric:

“You can take the stuff,

But leave the dream

When all is said and done

It’s only you and me.”

On Father’s Day weekend this year I found myself talking with my fellow father-in-law about all of this .We are both of an age and have had careers where we believed that all the stuff we accumulated was what we “owned” and that, in itself, defined a certain portion of our self-identity.

But the longer we thought about it (and I harkened back to “Kindly Lent Their Owner,” Carlin, and “Gratitude,” the more we got “it.”

All we really own in this life is what we have the time to enjoy while we’re here and, when we’re gone, “lend”  to our children, grandchildren, friends, and others in need., in order that they can also enjoy what was “lent” to us. We spend a lifetime working  to “own” what we will never really “own” in a permanent sense  beyond this life. It has been “kindly lent,” us; it is, temporarily, “ours.”  What we truly “own” isn’t a piece of art or a home or any variety of things. It is what we alone possess: the love of family, the kindness of strangers, and the community of friends. That’s the “stuff” that can’t be lent, and it also can’t be stolen.

You’re Gonna Miss This

The bedroom door was locked. I didn’t want her to see me cry. “Dad, we have to go,” she said, while knocking continuously on the door.

Go where? It wasn’t possible. My little girl was going off to college. It was supposed to be a passage. It was alleged to be the natural order of things. 

It wasn’t. Not for me. 

I had spent the last 18 years repeating the same mantra to her. “You can’t live here forever. Our job is to get you out of the house and into your own life. Your job is to get yourself on your own.”

So why, now, did I not only disbelieve that parental mission, but disagreed with it. This was my baby, my first child. My Casey. 

“Dad, we have to go,” she repeated. 

Northeastern University, only a little more than an hour away, was the destination. It might as well have been India. 

I know. I have to unlock the door, both physically and metaphorically, to our daughter’s future. 

I will, I did. I must. 

So, we got in the car and, with her mother, drove to Boston, all the while me revisiting, in my mind, the day she came home from high school with a form for me to sign giving permission for her to take driver’s ed classes.

“Why do you need to drive,” I asked with actual seriousness. “I can take you anywhere you need to go.” 

“Dad, please just sign the form,” she implored.

Hypocrite. Me. The hypocrite. The blind man. I didn’t see it coming, this wave of saying one thing, getting exactly what I wanted, but not knowing I don’t want it at all. 

She’s leaving.

***

We get to Boston, finally. The car is unloaded with all measure of things that she is taking with her. 

The one thing she isn’t taking is me. Her father. 

It’s time to say goodbye. We do, me reluctantly. 

This time there’s no door, so I find a tree on campus to duck behind and hide the tears. 

We left. 

I had one of the first “mobile,” as they used to call them, phones.

 I called the payphone (I had made sure I had the number before leaving) in the dorm’s hallway and asked for Casey.

 She finally, after what seemed an eternity, came to the phone. 

“Are you okay,” I asked. 

“Dad, you and mom only left five minutes ago,” was the response.

My heart fell.

Five minutes for her was eighteen years to me. Where did it go?

Years later, I heard a song by Trace Adkins, “You’re Gonna Miss This,” about those years that went by in a flash.  

As a parent, the trials and challenges of infancy, adolescence, and young adulthood seem like they never will end.

They do.

They have.

You’re gonna miss this.

I did. 

I still do. 

You will, too. 

Good Journalism Takes Time

I tell my students we never know when a story will hit us. One hit me today. Actually, many have hit me, but few, if any, resonate quite so personally. This one does.
As with so many of our own stories, this one has its origin in the similarity to someone else’s story.
I was reading about several photographers, now each in their nineties, and the great, though largely unheralded, in our time, contributions they made to history—both to their field and to our culture.
The article was in Berkshire magazine. It profiled four photographers—two women—who, in a pre-digital, pre-cell, pre-device era, was a craft everyone couldn’t “just do.”
Sure, there were those who “snapped” photos, but there were others who learned the process of how to do it right.

They cared that the outcome was accomplished in a certain “way,” that it reflected the pride of the person behind the lens.That required imagination. It took care. The major lesson it can teach us is how to reflect.
It recognized that the work wasn’t only for this time. It might, just might, be for all time.
Imagine.
There once were those who not only knew the process, but thought about it. They had a vision. They could see the story before others saw it as a story.
They imagined it in their heads.
I knew one of them. I was privileged to work with and learn from him.
His name was Paul Pappas. He was my mentor, in journalism and in life.
I thought of him today because my father passed away, recently, at age 94.
Paul was like a second father to me. He passed away the first year I began university teaching.
He could be an unpleasant man. But he taught me that wasn’t the measure of a man.
Care
Like my father, Paul cared about the work he did. It was never enough for either of them to leave the job behind at the end of a long day. They took it with them.
There is such a thing as caring too much. There’s also such a thing as not caring enough.
Paul could have had it easier. First, he didn’t need a wet-behind- the ears, fresh from radio twenty-something who knew next to nothing about the medium Paul helped create when film was king and video hadn’t even been imagined.
In radio, I worked to master words. Pictures were never a consideration. In television, I had to learn it the other way around. It was like learning a new language (and high school French was not my forte.)
In my first television job, the station management thought it would be a great idea to pair me with Paul.
It didn’t seem so to me.
For one, I truly disliked this man, much the way any child, at some point, dislikes a parent who tells him or her that he or she isn’t doing things the right way.
Paul did that. Repeatedly.
To start, some days he would refuse to shoot my “standup,” the part of the story where I appeared on-camera, until I knew where and why it “fit” into the story I was trying to tell.
That, of course, meant I needed to know the story I was trying to tell. And, often, I did not.
More than once, when we were on-location, he stopped shooting, packed the camera in the news car’s trunk, and announced “we’re done.”
When I’d argue, he’d say something like “learn to get it right,” offering some abrupt advice, and then, still insisting that, for this day, I was done.
I thought, at the time, it was because he disliked me.
I was wrong.
He cared.
After weeks of being reminded by Paul that I knew nothing about television news, I whined, complained, and made it clear to my station’s management that I didn’t want to work with him.
Their response: you need to work with him. They were right. They might have added “and he needs to work with you.”
I needed to learn. And in ways he didn’t realize, he needed to teach.

Teach
We tend to think of teachers as those who occupy a classroom. It’s easy to overlook that the most effective teachers don’t have that occupation listed on their tax returns.
Paul was a teacher.
And I had a lot to learn, both about journalism and about my teacher.
For starters, I didn’t know that this gruff, inconsiderate, and angry man was also a big part of journalism history.
He never told me. I never asked.
I could have had no way of knowing that one day in the future I would tell his story in front of hundreds of students—the story that was in the textbooks I used for my courses. Little did I know then how little the textbooks knew, even now.
Paul Pappas, I learned in time, had gone to jail. He called it, modestly, his “case.” He only talked about it when someone brought it up, albeit reluctantly. Even then, he would minimize his role in the historic Branzburg v. Hayes case that worked its way all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The issue was reporter’s privilege—the right to withhold from authorities confidential information that is revealed during the process of news gathering. It eventually took the form of “shield laws” in some, though not all, of the United States. Sadly, it’s still not a federal law.
In Paul’s instance, he was granted access to a Black Panther headquarters in New Bedford, MA in 1972, on the condition that he wouldn’t reveal its location.
When authorities learned that he knew the location, Paul was brought into court and told to reveal his sources, as well as the exact location of the Panthers’ headquarters.
He refused.
Paul was unaware, at the time, that there were two other journalists—Paul Branzburg and Earl Caldwell—who had taken a similar stand, different circumstances, same principle.
Frankly, knowing Paul as I came to know him, if he had, it wouldn’t have made a difference.
He made his own choice.
Journalism wasn’t free. It came with a price, one way or another.
Paul never sought to be a teacher, but he became one, teaching by example.

1981. After what seemed to be an eternity of enduring his criticism, wrath, and condescension, I basically ignored him. On this day, Paul and I were in the waiting room of Providence RI’s then postmaster general, Harry Kazerian.
He was an old acquaintance of Paul’s. It was a large club, as Paul often reminded me.
We were waiting outside Harry’s office to interview him; Paul was reading a magazine.
I heard a voice.
“You know, Mister, you’re pretty good.” It was Paul.
“Excuse me,” I remarked, figuring he couldn’t be talking to me.
Without looking up, the great man, who I did not know to be the great man, repeated, “you’re pretty damned good.”
That was, as they say, the turning point. I didn’t know it then. I know it now.
Paul was giving me his approval and, not knowing it, his permission to keep doing this damned thing called journalism.
It was not based upon a single accomplishment, but perseverance and progress.
I, the pupil, had shown him, the teacher, that I cared to get it right, that I thought about how to do the story before forging ahead just to get it done.
Apparently, I had impressed “Paulie,” as I would later be allowed to call him (though few were), when he and I had covered Pope John Paul’s visit to Boston.
On that day, he had warned me that I had only one chance to get it right, meaning my standup as the Pope passed behind me during the papal procession.
Fuck it up, I recalled him saying, and you have nothing. You can’t do it over.
He taught. I learned.
One chance.
Don’t fuck it up.
Scared to disappoint the man who I had heretofore loathed, I did it.
Once.
Got it right.
One take.
I didn’t know I could do that. I still don’t know how I did it. The words I spoke escape me, but I remember this: I didn’t want our feud, mine and Paul’s, to go on.
He nodded, saying nothing.

Getting It Right
1982. The Claus von Bulow trial in Newport, R.I. It was the first nationally televised trial. The details are readily available: Danish socialite is accused of killing heiress wife for money and mistress.
Paul and I covered it together. By then, we were talking.
It wasn’t far from our house then, so Paul would pick me up in the news car on the way to the courthouse. We’d sometimes have breakfast first.
It was our routine, for months, that is, until it wasn’t.
Finally, the trial ended. The jurors began deliberating.
That’s when the “pool” system—the lottery that determined who would shoot that day’s court proceedings—decided who the one photographer shooting the verdict would be.
It was not a small decision. Whoever shot the verdict was recording history for millions of people. Even in the pre-Internet world, it would be broadcast and shared by hundreds of news organizations world-wide.
Paul got the nod.
He deliberated in our kitchen that morning of the verdict. Where should he focus? On the defendant? On the jury foreman? On the family of the victim?
He seemed, uncharacteristically, undecided.
We talked about it in the news car on the way to the courthouse.
He actually asked my advice. Me.
I mumbled something like “just get it right.” There are no second chances.
He had taught me and taught me well.
Paul focused on the defendant, Claus von Bulow’s, reaction, as the guilty verdict was delivered.
It resonated throughout the world. He got it right.
My piece, which he shot, did also. I got it right, the first time.
Teacher and student, united.
Years later, when I became a professor, Paul was generous with his time, talking to my students for their term papers in media law.
He was, uncharacteristically, talkative.
What he never told them was how much he cared about every story, not just the “big” ones. He never showed it, but he cared.
He cared. Big time.

Reflect
I remember the time when the wind chill was well below zero and a beached whale was at death’s door. After staying in the bone-chilling cold with Paul for an hour, I relented, retreating into the news car.
Paul stayed. He didn’t want to miss the story, especially the rescue, when rescuers arrived.
He caught the moment when the whale was pulled from the ocean, just as he had the sinking of the Andrea Doria in 1956. Yes, he caught that, on film, too. If you’ve ever seen it, you’ve seen Paul’s historic work.
On this day, I thought he might have pushed it too far. He was breathing hard and turning pale—not good for a man his age who had survived open heart surgery too few years before.
“Damn it, old man, you’re going to die with that camera on your shoulder,” I yelled in his face.
“That’s exactly the way I’m going to die,” he told me.
He did. Not on that day, but not long after.
He was photographing an everyday car accident, neither historic nor memorable.
It was at the end of his work day and he went out to shoot it before heading home.
Paul died of a heart attack, his video camera on his shoulder, just as he predicted.
His legacy did not.
It lives on in the hundreds of students he never met, the ones I’ve taught. The ones I will soon teach.
Thank you, Paulie.
I’d like to think they, too, will eventually get it right.
It takes time. But you knew that.

Memories Where You Can Find Them

  • Memories

Memories Where You Can Find Them

The VHS box set of “Star Wars.” I bought that for her for Christmas.

The first video games he ever lobbied to get for Christmas. I bought those, too.

The Care Bears that I stood in line at frigid Christmas time, with tons of other parents, to “win” for her special gift.

Oh, and there were the “My Little Pony(s),” all the accessories, and how about those “Cabbage Patch Kids?”

Those CD’s by people with names like “Vanilla Ice.”

They’re all in my house now. Some of them are visible every day. Some are packed away in the attic. I either pass or come across them every day, in my travels here at the home where our “kids” were raised.

I called it a “home.” Actually, now it’s a house. That’s a downgrade.

When did that happen? I guess around the time our daughter and son “grew up.”

Sure, they still come to visit, sometimes for a weekend, sometimes longer, always for holidays, at least for now, with or without a spouse or “other.”

I wonder for how long.

The rest of the time I walk by this stuff they left behind and see how much more was left behind. So much more.

Some of it is just “stuff.”  Some of it is more, much, much more.

There are the baseball gloves, his and mine. They correspond to the patch of lawn where we played catch in a time that seems not so very long ago. But it was.

There are the photos of the pets, long gone, in each of their bedrooms. Why do they keep those?

And why am not able to avoid looking at them each time I walk in and out of their rooms to raise shades or lower windows?

Old technology abounds. There’s the boom box that once was state-of-the-art and its sibling, the Walkman.

I pledged I’d get rid of all this stuff last summer. Or, was it the summer before? Or is it every summer since they “grew up”?

When my mom died nearly eight years ago, my dad, now 94, told my sister and me that nothing was to be touched in his house. He wanted it exactly the way it was when my mother left us.

That seemed an old man’s clinging to something long gone, something that can’t be retrieved, a time that can’t be brought back.

A fool’s gold.

It seemed that way.

But then, I became that man.

What would seem to others like scrap is my gold.

It is a touchstone on a time and of a time.

It is a window to memories that shouldn’t depend upon an object, and yet they do.

These objects—all of them—are markers, reminders that this once was a home.

Now it’s a house.

The difference may not be measurable, but it is palpable.

And it brings me, as a father, closer to my own.

Who, not what, is a “soft target?”

It’s one of those experiences that falls into the category of “firsts.” First love, first kiss, first job, first car, first concert.
It’s one of those indelible joys, proof that we are making progress toward growing up, getting closer to something for which we yearned: adulthood.
When I was growing up, and maybe when you were, I looked forward to the day when I could go to my first concert, an experience filled with anticipation of independence from my parents.
I had every expectation that it would be crowded, loud, characterized by blazing lights and thumping sound.
I expected all those things.
What I never had to think about was that I could be a soft target.
I remember my father, who had worked all day in the fields, dropped me off at the RI Auditorium, a cavernous barn of an arena, an hour’s from our home, so I could have the shared experience with friends and total strangers of watching the great James Brown, Sonny and Cher, the Young Rascals.
He probably had his own apprehensions about what was going on at the concert.
What he didn’t have to think about was that I might be a soft target.
With our own kids, I came closer to knowing what fear was when letting go of them for what was an early marker of adolescent independence.
I never had to think of them, not even once, as soft targets.
As various media outlets repeat that term nearly every 5 minutes, in the shadow of the bombings outside an Ariana Grande concert in the UK, I’m struck by the irony of the term itself.
While I know the term “soft target” has specific meaning when devising strategies to fight terrorism, it hardly seems appropriate when describing the hard reality of what we as a culture are now facing.
For the nearly 22 young people who lost their lives, there was nothing “soft” about the brutal action that robbed them of their youth and their future.
For the parents of those young people, there will be no “soft” days ahead.
I’m aware that “soft target” refers to distinguishing between high risk and lower risk targets, but I also wonder if using the term actually desensitizes us to the reality of terror.
There’s more at stake here than semantics.
As soon as we delineate and separate some places as soft targets for terrorists, don’t we shield ourselves from the realization that we live in a world where nowhere is safe?
The loss of these young people’s lives is the most tragic part of this or any act of terrorism.
But the collateral damage is the destruction of the joy, the memories of childhood, preadolescence, and adolescence that the young people of this and future generations may never have.
As another musician, Don Henley, once wrote, it’s the end of the innocence.
And there’s nothing soft about it.

Top 5 Annoying Habits of TV News Reporters

TV reporter

I’m always tempted to write about serious issues involving journalistic practices, often those that result in an ethical lapse. Sometimes, though, it’s just good to take a break from all that “seriousness” and focus on some of journalism’s simpler lapses. Watching local TV news provides a lot upon which to focus. Here are the top 5 most annoying habits common to many television reporters.

5. Nodding continuously while being tossed (TV lingo for being introduced) to by the studio anchor during a live shot. The best I can deduce, it’s to reassure the show’s producer that the reporter knows she/he is on camera and is ready to go. Unfortunately, it often doesn’t so much  project preparation as it does an unfortunate nervous “tick” or spasm.

4. Walking and talking on camera even when standing still makes more sense and motion is not only gratuitous, but distracting. A variation on this is random hand movement, meant to punctuate and emphasize a story’s major points. Instead,  an excess of both result in making the reporter appear to have some variation of ADD or ADHD.

3. Failing to check pronunciation before reading a story off the teleprompter. This really becomes obvious when the word is part of a familiar phrase like “bats in the belfry.”  Most viewers know the last word in that phrase is pronounced “bel-free.”  I heard an experienced news anchor recently pronounce it “bel-fry.”  That really burned her credibility with me.

2.  Laughing exhaustively at a colleague’s comment. Yes, those who work in TV news are supposed to appear to be “friends” on and off the set. That’s why reporters will often joke back and forth. Let’s face it. Most aren’t Jimmy Fallon or Jon Stewart. Let’s invoke the 5 second rule. If you feel you must establish “rapport” with your anchor or reporter, limit the hilarity to no more than five seconds and move on. Audiences can take this stuff to a limited degree, usually around the weather segment, which most of the time isn’t serious anyway.

1. Looking serious no matter what. Just as everything isn’t hilarious, every story isn’t related to a life or death issue. Staring at the camera with a mournful “the world as we know it is ending” look while delivering a sad or tragic story suggests not only over-hype of the story, but a lack of perspective on what’s really important in our world. Looking appropriately serious is good. Looking like you, personally, are in pain, as opposed to the real pain of  those directly impacted by your story, is not.

An addendum to the number one annoyance: The story, any story, is not yours. It belongs to those living it, those whose lives are impacted by it. As visual storytellers, TV news reporters can be especially vulnerable to annoying habits. The antidote is vigilance: be sure that what you think you are conveying is actually what the audience is receiving.