links for 2010-06-15
by Brian Reich | 15 Jun 2010, 10:01am
-
Words on the wall at the Gannett headquarters in McLean, VA (where I was participating in the WeMedia Tabula Rasa DC event today). …
TAGS
leave a comment
An Idea for CNN
by Brian Reich | 19 May 2010, 12:46pm
Now that Campbell Brown has resigned her anchor slot at CNN the cable news network is looking to fill an hour of programming each night at 8:00pm. There are lots of creative, innovative — and I think compelling — ways that they could program that time… none of which I would expect CNN to explore. More likely, CNN will do one of three things:
1) They will hire a big-name talent, perhaps from the journalism world (or maybe from the comedy, acting or similar world), or an over-sized personality (like one of their talking head contributors) to host a show that is designed to be both informative and entertaining — but in fact is neither. In other words, they will try to emulate what has worked for Bill O’Reilly or Rachel Maddow or Stephen Colbert or any of the other successful cable hosts on other networks (news and otherwise). They will chase the story of the day, re-hash discussions about issues that have filled their airwaves for hours, interview all the same people that everyone else is talking to, and generally break no new ground.
2) They will fall prey to ’shiny object’ syndrome — which could mean crowdsourcing their content for the hour (tapping into citizen reporters to report on issues), or using Twitter, Facebook, FourSquare and other tools to add a new layer of useless knowledge to an already tired story. They will promote the show as being new and innovative, when in fact it is neither new nor innovative. Again, they will chase the story of the day, re-hash discussions about issues that have filled their airwaves for hours, interview all the same people that everyone else is talking to, and generally break no new ground — despite using all these new tools.
3) They will produce original content — documentaries, special reports and the like — in an attempt to counter the talking-head, opinion-driven programming of their rival networks. This more substantive approach, of course, has great potential. However, these more in-depth pieces will still mostly chase the story of the day, re-hash discussions about issues that have filled their airwaves for hours, feature all the same people that everyone else is talking to, and generally break no new ground — even though they are using a different format entirely.
It doesn’t have to be that way. CNN could fill the 8:00pm time slot with programming that is entertaining, substantive, timely and relevant — to issues that are important to people, but not necessarily the same issues that all the other news networks are discussing — and, most importantly, worth watching. How to do that? Here are my thoughts:
1) Forget about your brand and do your job. CNN can be the most trusted source for news, or the best political team in the business, or the only network that really delivers unbiased news… or whatever they think is going to resonate with the audience, but only if they actually do those things. That means the news that you share and the issues that you cover cannot come from CNN alone. You cannot rely on your (relatively small) network of experts and sources to cover everything. Having the same people, with their limited expertise, offer perspective on every single issue imaginable simply because they are on contract as a contributor doesn’t work. CNN has to be in the business of finding the stories and framing the most important issues in ways that the audience finds valuable, and if that means asking a reporter from another news source, or a blogger, or a person they encounter on the street to contribute, that’s what it takes. CNN must have to find the expert voices for each issues, each night, every time, no exceptions.
2) Blow up the format and go where the story takes you. Having the same structure to a broadcast every night undermines your ability to deliver the best coverage and analysis of a story. It also gets boring for the viewer. Some issues require a discussion among experts. Some topics are best handled by way of an interview. Some stories can be delivered in a series of short segments while others require a much longer discussion and deeper exploration. Some opportunities are ripe for a commentary. CNN should not look to find a host, or a format, a structure for a show, or even a single set of tools to apply to every different issue on any given night. If anything, it should identify a long list of options — people to tap, tools to deploy, formats to utilize — and depending on the day or issue choose which ones makes the most sense.
3) Focus on quality, not ratings. If CNN creates timely, relevant, compelling content and distributes it during the 8:00pm time slot on TV, over the web, across a variety of different technology platforms and other channels, with each platform having unique information and adaptions to reflect the user behavior of the audience, everything will work out just fine. Ratings will follows. Sponsors will be excited. Guests will clamor to be a part of the experience. And success begets success.
What does this look like in practical terms? A quick list:
- Multiple conveners. Rather than having one person host the show each night you have a series of people you can tap depending on the focus or issue. Perhaps you have five people who each command the anchor desk one day of the week. Perhaps you have a group of people who have a particular focus or expertise — politics, economics, culture, sports — and depending on the topic you can tap the person who is most suited to lead the discussion. They don’t have to be journalists, or have television expertise — at least not yet — what the ‘hosts’ need to offer is passion, intelligence, focus, and the ability to direct questions and explore issues in ways that the other networks and anchors can’t.
- Focus. Instead of chasing the same story as everyone else, apply a focus to an issue. Spend the entire hour one day talking about the economic impacts of an issue, or the influence an event will have on our culture. Don’t try to do everything, just do one thing each show — and do it well. You could have a topic area for each day of the week (Monday - Politics, Tuesday - Economics, Wednesday - Culture, etc.) and slice any issue up through that lens.
- Cross-pollinate. Instead of having people who are experts in a particular area talk about what they know, tap people who can offer different perspectives and new ideas. Have economists talk about sports. Have politicians talk about entertainment. Have CEOs discuss weather. By mixing up the perspectives and offering a different angle of attack to a conversation you are going to get to new and different places with the conversation.
- Multi-platform. The hour of TV programming is just the beginning. Every show and every issue that is put on the air needs to be accompanied by original content that lives only on the web, or through a mobile app. Every guest should be invited (or required) to provide original content — written, audio, video, etc. - to extend their contribution to the show. All the notes and prep materials for a show should be made available to the viewer, in real time. A list of articles and books that someone should read, other shows they should watch or similar if they want to learn more about something discussed on the show should be made available. Events and other opportunities to contribute ideas, discuss issues, and otherwise engage the people working on the show should be created — think office hours (real and virtual) so the audience can be a part of the process (while stopping short of giving the keys to the asylum over to the crazy people).
This type of program is easy and inexpensive to produce. The format and focus are flexible, so its highly marketable and adaptable to different audiences and interests. The approach reflects the way people watch television and consume news today than any other program CNN offers (or other networks for that matter), so it takes advantage of what is already happening to shape the future of news and programming. And it fills a hole, both in terms of what CNN offers in its programming lineup, as well as for what news consumers who are desperate for more and different ways of understanding what is happening in the world.
If you know anyone at CNN who wants to explore this idea, let me know. Until then, I’m off to look at the upfronts to see what else I might be able to watch at 8:00pm each night.
TAGS
: Campbell Brown CNN Innovation News programming
2 comments
Must-Read: Lefty vs. Righty
by Brian Reich | 28 Apr 2010, 12:07pm
Earlier this week President Obama made a personal appeal (via YouTube) to Democrats to work to keep Democrats in office in this fall’s midterm elections. The video kicks off what is expected to be a significant effort by Democrats to hold onto their majorities in the House and Senate. Republicans are likely to gain seats in both the House and the Senate, but nobody really knows what will happen.
There are, of course, lots of questions: Will healthcare reform, the economy (and the need for greater regulation and/or oversight of the financial system), the environment, or some other issue lead the discussion? Will the campaign feature a constructive dialogue of the serious issues that challenge our nation or, like most campaigns right now, dissolve into a battle of negative attacks? Does anyone - Democrats, Republicans, independents, advocacy groups, individuals - have a positive vision for America that will inspire voters to engage, and most importantly, participate in the democratic process? Will this finally be the cycle where campaigns operate differently — not only utilizing the new and exciting forms of media that are available, but truly leverage them to do more than just raise money or fire up existing supporters? We’ll know more as the campaign unfolds.
Of course, we already know that technology and the internet are having a significant and dramatic impact on all aspects of our society — most importantly, in the context of politics, how we communicate, engage, educate and mobilize audiences.
Take, for example, the political blogosphere. In just a decade (give or take), blogs have become one of the most influential and important elements of the political campaign process. There are blogs on the left. There are blogs on the right. Mainstream media now operate blogs as a supplement to their more traditional coverage. Some of the leading political coverage and analysis is taking place on blogs, allowing campaigns and voters to bypass the mainstream media coverage entirely. Political blogs offer another (sometimes more personal, hopefully real-time) channel through which a candidate or campaign team can introduce ideas and carry on discussions with supporters. And, countless studies (as well as my own personal experiences) suggest that the blogs can have significant influence and impact on voter perspective and behavior.
So how does the political blogosphere work? That’s the subject of a new study out of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard. The study, A Tale of Two Blogospheres, is written by, among others, Yochai Benkler, a Harvard Professor and the author of The Wealth of Networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom (an absolute must-read of a book).
In typical Berkman Center fashion, this study is pretty nerdy. Want proof? Here is an excerpt of the summary of the study:
Notably, we find evidence of an association between ideological affiliation and the technologies, institutions, and practices of participation across political blogs. Sites on the left adopt more participatory technical platforms; are comprised of significantly fewer sole-authored sites; include user blogs; maintain more fluid boundaries between secondary and primary content; include longer narrative and discussion posts; and (among the top half of the blogs in our sample) more often use blogs as platforms for mobilization as well as discursive production.
But don’t let that stop you. As the study notes, “Following the historic election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States, few will deny the importance of studying the effect of the Internet on politics and democracy.” And there are not very many studies available that offer solid insights and intelligence that help both poli-nerds and non-junkies alike can understand and put to good use. This is one of those studies.
(NOTE: If you read the study and still can’t figure out what it means, The Nation has published a piece about the study, as well as an interview with Yochai Benkler that are a bit more plain-speaking).
The internet and technology have absolutely changed politics — and continue to have significant, disruptive, and important influences on the way candidates are elected and policy is made. Blogs are a big part of that and there is no reason to believe they will disappear any time soon. That doesn’t mean the way the internet and technology are being applied to campaigns is good or constructive — far from it in most cases. We (meaning both citizens and political operative both) haven’t yet fully realized the potential that the new channels, tools, and usage patterns by people who are connected in new and exciting ways makes possible in the context of politics. This study might help with that. And who knows what happens then…
TAGS
: Berkman Center for the Internet and Society blogs Harvard Must-Read politics Yochai Benkler
1 comment
Must-Read: Another nail in the coffin
by Brian Reich | 27 Apr 2010, 12:48pm
I firmly believe, and have said on the record, that marketers as well as consumers would be better served if TV networks (or really any media/channel creator - radio, TV, internet, print, etc.) took over the full functions of advertising agencies.
So, I was obviously excited to read that media companies have started to offer ad-agency-like services in hopes of stealing a few more of their clients’ dollars. According to AdAge, “some have taken it a step further by creating ads for clients that appear on other media properties” as well. Conde Nast is leading the pack.
This is both long overdue and a clear sign that the future of advertising agencies will look very different than the past, or present — if there is a future at all. Happy reading.
TAGS
: Advertising Advertising Age Conde Nast media Must-Read
leave a comment
Must-Read: Playbook
by Brian Reich | 26 Apr 2010, 12:48pm
The Note came first. First published in 2002 by then ABC News Political Director, Mark Halperin, The Note was a daily summary and analysis of political news stories and trends that became a must-read for anyone in/around politics. It was, and still is, a must-read.
As The Note gained in popularity, every other news team/network looked to create its own agenda-setting daily brain dump. CNN had one, but has abandoned it since in favor of hyper-active politically-focused blog and twitter feeds. First Read (from NBC/MSNBC) still exists today — and good thing, because it didn’t really become a must-read until Chuck Todd, former editor of The Hotline, and its sister blog, Hotline On Call, joined the NBC news team).
Today’s must-read political brain dump is Mike Allen’s Playbook, available through Politico. But while The Note, First Read and countless political bloggers and other (supposed) opinion makers try to shape the way people in/around politics think, Mike Allen actually does. Or at least that is the argument that Mark Leibovich makes in his profile of Mike Allen in this week’s New York Times Magazine cover story.
Two notable excerpts from the article:
Allen’s e-mail tipsheet, Playbook, has become the principal early-morning document for an elite set of political and news-media thrivers and strivers. Playbook is an insider’s hodgepodge of predawn news, talking-point previews, scooplets, birthday greetings to people you’ve never heard of, random sightings (“spotted”) around town and inside jokes. It is, in essence, Allen’s morning distillation of the Nation’s Business in the form of a summer-camp newsletter.
And…
As a practical matter, here is how Allen’s 10 stories influence the influentials. Cable bookers, reporters and editors read Playbook obsessively, and it’s easy to pinpoint exactly how an item can spark copycat coverage that can drive a story. Items become segment pieces on “Morning Joe,” the MSNBC program, where there are 10 Politico Playbook segments each week, more than half of them featuring Allen. This incites other cable hits, many featuring Politico reporters, who collectively appear on television about 125 times a week. There are subsequent links to Politico stories on The Drudge Report, The Huffington Post and other Web aggregators that newspaper assigning editors and network news producers check regularly. “Washington narratives and impressions are no longer shaped by the grand pronouncements of big news organizations,” said Allen, a former reporter for three of them — The Washington Post, The New York Times and Time magazine. “The smartest people in politics give us the kindling, and we light the fire.”
The argument is hard to argue with. But decide for yourself. The article is fascinating, and I encourage you to read all of it… (no skimming allowed).
I know MIke Allen and worked with him in a previous life (back in 1999 and 2000 when I was part of Al Gore’s staff at the White House and during the 2000 presidential campaign). He is an absolutely amazing reporter and a truly warm and thoughtful person. In other words, he is everything Mark Leibovich described him as, and more. I haven’t talked to Mike Allen since he joined Politico (I sent him a congratulatory note upon hearing that he was the first reporter hired). But I have read his stories in Politico every day and I suggest you do as well.
TAGS
: Mark Leibovich Mike Allen Must-Read New York Times Sunday Magazine Politico
leave a comment
Must-Read: BusinessWeek
by Brian Reich | 24 Apr 2010, 2:06pm
BusinessWeek has always been a must-read magazine in my experience. And the newly re-designed version (now called Bloomberg BusinessWeek) is even better. The first issue, which arrived in my mailbox last night, boasts twice as many stories and 20 percent more pages, and generally takes the whole business magazine experience to the next level. In addition to the smart business coverage that the magazine has always offered, there is more coverage of policy & politics, entrepreneurship and small business, and a new section called ‘Etc.’ with everything from sports to fashion news through a business lens.
Can the Bloomberg BusinessWeek team sustain the momentum? As a subscriber and regular reader, allow me to offer three quick suggestions:
- Do things other magazines can’t (or won’t). This week’s issue of the magazine features an interesting story about new legal protections for social enterprises. That is not an issue you see discussed every day in mainstream media, business or otherwise. When issues of social enterprise are discussed, most articles highlight the same handful of companies — Ben & Jerry’s and Seventh Generation for example. And that is exactly what BusinessWeek did as well. In future issues, I hope BusinessWeek will not only continue to cover this issue, but also profile, or even just interview, some of the dozens/hundreds/thousands of other social enterprises that are doing incredible work, but haven’t yet achieved the recognition of the established players. And that same thinking should be applied to all your stories, not just for social enterprises.
- Make everyday things interesting. The new issue featured two really fun stories — one about company softball (Hitmen for Hire) and a quick fashion recommendation (The Office Sneaker) — that that represent the key to the magazine’s future success. Most people in/around business spend more time worrying about what to wear and how to ‘fit in’ then they do about Goldman Sachs or a political campaign in California. That doesn’t mean softball and shoe selection are the most important issues in business, far from it. But, softball and shoe selection are important elements to the culture of business, and thus, are interesting - and important — in the eyes of the audience (myself included). Any magazine can write a smart story once, but to be successful over time, BusinessWeek will need to ensure that it can continue to make the everyday things about business and life interesting, in the way that only a top business magazine can.
- Better advertising. The new design is nice. The expanded coverage is appreciated. But I have to tell you, the advertising in BusinessWeek (and all print magazines for that matter) is really holding you back. Week after week I see the same companies hocking their wares. Week after week I see the same boring ad design and content. A redesign and re-imagination of what is possible for BusinessWeek, the print magazine, needs to include a re-envisioning of the advertising as well. BusinessWeek needs to turn the ads into content, either by working with the advertisers more closely, or taking over the design and presentation of the ads in the magazine yourself. BusinessWeek needs to re-imagine the role of advertising in a print magazine, so instead of promoting a product or branding a company, the pages in between stories help to enhance the whole reading experience and/or extend the learning process. Only then will every page in the magazine truly be must-read.
I can’t wait to see the second issue (and the third, and the fourth, etc) to see what happens.
Must-Read: Double Trouble
by Brian Reich | 23 Apr 2010, 12:51pm
I have a love/hate relationship with mainstream media. I love reading/listening to/watching mainstream media because it gives me access to stories and ideas that I wouldn’t otherwise encounter on my own. At the same time, I hate reading/listening to/watching mainstream media because all too often it presents the same stories and ideas over and over again.
For example:
The New York Times Magazine featured an article about Bob and Mike Bryan, the identical twin brothers who also happen to be the most successful doubles tennis pair in the world, in their August 24, 2009 issue. The headline was “Unseparated Since Birth.” It was a good article — I learned some new/interesting things about the Bryan’s life on, and off, the tennis court.
A week later, in their August 31, 2009 issue, The New Yorker published an article about the Bryan Brothers with the title “Perfect Match.” There was some overlap between this article and the one from the week before, as you would expect, but in class New Yorker fashion, this article also looked into what scientists know about the relationship that exists between twin siblings as a way of analyzing the brothers’ ability to dominate opponents (vs. their limited success when playing apart). Very smart stuff.
So, two good articles in one week about the Bryan brothers. How exciting!
In the year since… not so much.
On March 18, 2010, 60 Minutes aired a story about the brothers. There was no new information in the story. The April 26, 2010 issue of Sports Illustrated has a profile of the brothers (the title is ‘Togetherness‘). No new ground broken here either. And there are many more examples…
The Bryan Brothers are a great story. They deserve to be covered. And I want to hear more, go deeper, and look at their lives from different perspectives and angles. But that’s not how the mainstream media plays the game. Any one of the stories I posted, on its own, is worth reading. But every story about them is not - especially because they are, at this point, mostly the same.
Once that first big story has been written, or an in-depth piece (like the one in The New Yorker) offers some solid analysis of their success, the mainstream media has two choices: option 1 is to cover something else (and trust me, there are more than enough good stories out there if you are willing to look), option 2 is to add some value. That means writing about a different aspect of their lives. That means focusing on a different part of their game. That means interviewing different people in the world of tennis for their perspectives. You get the idea.
The mainstream media has settled for the first option in the case of the Bryan brothers. I’m looking forward to someone… anyone… taking a shot at option two.
TAGS
: 60 Minutes Bob Bryan Mike Bryan Must-Read New York Times Sports Illustrated tennis The New Yorker
2 comments
Must-Read: Fat Nation
by Brian Reich | 22 Apr 2010, 1:11pm
Marc Ambinder (politics editor of The Atlantic) is one of the smartest political reporters in the nation. He is already a must-read on all things campaign or public policy related. Now, after reading his cover story in the May issue of The Atlantic Monthly (”Fat Nation: Its Worse Than You Think. How To Beat Obesity”), I rank him as one of the smartest reporters on the subject of food policy and the political challenges associated with behavior change as well.
There are three things that Marc Ambinder does better than any reporter I have seen on this issue. They are:
1. Some reporters focus on one small piece of the obesity issue - the connection between poverty and obesity or maybe the need for legislation to help get fatty foods out of school lunch programs. Others offer a broad analysis of all the issues without providing sufficient depth or insight. Marc Ambinder makes it clear that the current approaches to addressing obesity in this nation are not comprehensive or sufficient - he leaves nothing to chance. For example, he writes:
If we are to solve the many problems that obesity is creating for American society, we must first move beyond the stale “willpower versus the food-industrial complex” debate. We need to understand what causes obesity, and what can really address it. And we need to try everything from rezoning fast-food restaurants and restricting food advertising to supporting new treatments and rewriting insurance policies. We won’t summon the collective will to take these steps until we recognize that our attitudes toward obesity are as unhealthy as the condition itself. We don’t want to look at fat people, much less pay for their medical care; we don’t want to be contaminated by them. But if we want fewer fat people in our midst, then we, as a nation, must start by treating them without condescension or contempt, and recognize the real obstacles that stand between them and better health.
2. Marc Ambinder has a personal connection to this issue, but he didn’t write this article as a memoir. In fact, he turned his own personal story into an opportunity to help shift the focus of the debate about obesity. He did that by applying the same reasoned, intelligent, detailed level of thinking he does to any political issue he covers. For example, he writes:
I’m intimately acquainted with the struggle against fat. I may have been skinny as a child—my family used to joke about putting meat on my bones—and I played sports in school, but by the time I was bar mitzvahed, I was overweight. In my 20s, I spent hundreds of hours with personal trainers and diet doctors, and tried virtually every popular diet at least once. Lots of money in the pockets of the gurus; no joy for me. Approaching the age of 30, I passed the nebulous but generally accepted clinical threshold separating the merely overweight from the obese: a ratio of weight (in kilograms) to the square of height (in meters) of 30 or more. (A body-mass index, or BMI, of 18.5 to 24.9 is considered “normal”; from 25 to 29.9 is considered “overweight.”) I also developed severe diabetes and sleep apnea. My aching back was the least of my problems.
Perhaps my own losing struggle with weight reflects a failure of willpower. That seems more plausible to me than the argument that I was a helpless victim of Arby’s. But most fat people aren’t like me: as an upper-middle-class professional, I could draw on plenty of resources in my battle against weight. The people most vulnerable to obesity, however, do not have access to healthy food, to role models, to solid health-care and community infrastructures, to accurate information, to effective treatments, and even to the time necessary to change their relationship with food. And if that is true for fat adults, it is even more true for fat children, many of whose choices are made for them. Their vulnerability to obesity is much more the result of societal inequalities than of any character flaw. Indeed, for all the attention paid to fat’s economic costs, the epidemic’s toll on children is a stark reminder of its moral dimension. Without some form of intervention, researchers worry, large numbers of black and Hispanic children in the United States will grow up overweight or obese and lead shorter, less fulfilling lives. Is that a legacy we want to live with?
3. It would be easy for someone like Marc Ambinder, with more than enough political news to cover, to write a good cover story for his magazine and move on to other issues. But this is anything but a one-and-done story. He has already committed several blog posts to the issue of obesity, in the context of politics and public policy, and I suspect there will be many more in the future. Here are three of the posts I think are worth reading:
Obesity: Ten Ideas To Fight The Problem
Indulge This: What the Obesity Movement Can Learn From the Defeat of Big Tobacco
Not only do I hope you will read Marc Ambinder’s story in The Atlantic Monthly, and his blog posts… I hope you will take a moment to share the article with all of the other media, organizations and activists who are working to address the issue of obesity, or any complex social issue. I am so tired of the same old approaches to addressing complex social issues — whether it is from the media, a celebrity (see my criticism of Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution), or the nonprofit/philanthropy community. As I have said many times before, we need a complete reset — a new way of thinking, organizing and communicating about serious issues, complex or otherwise, if we expect to make any progress. Marc Ambinder offers a different kind of coverage and analysis of this issue and there is a lot we can all learn from him.
TAGS
: Jamie Oliver Marc Ambinder Must-Read Obesity The Atlantic Monthly
leave a comment
Must-Read: The Rules
by Brian Reich | 19 Apr 2010, 12:30pm
[I had a much smarter sounding post than this written - and I thought, published. But something happened and most of the post disappeared. I tried to re-create here but didn't do a very good job. What a bummer!]
I am that guy who reads the rules. I don’t read the rules because I am looking for a way to break them, or because I am seeking to find an extra advantage against an opponent. I read the rules because I helps me understand the game that I play (and watch) better. In find that knowing the rules makes the overall experience of playing (or watching) better.
Over the last few weeks I have found myself re-reading the official rules for some of the professional sports that I watch on TV. Consider the following comparison:
The NFL rule book includes a clause that reads:
The Commissioner has sole authority to investigate and to take appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures if any club action, nonparticipant interference, or emergency occurs in an NFL game which he deems so unfair or outside the accepted tactics encountered in professional football that such action has a major effect on the result of a game.
The official Rules of Golf state:
Golf is played, for the most part, without the supervision of a referee or umpire. The game relies on the integrity of the individual to show consideration for other players and to abide by the Rules. All players should conduct themselves in a disciplined manner, demonstrating courtesy and sportsmanship at all times, irrespective of how competitive they may be. This is the spirit of the game of golf.
In the NFL, the rules are strictly enforced — by the referees on the field and by the commissioner of the league if needed. The same is true for the NBA (rules) and Major League Baseball (rules). Golf is somewhat different. There are rules in golf, and in professional golf officials help to ensure that the rules are observed and enforced. However, the game of golf is really governed by a code of conduct under which all players willingly and faithfully operate.
Now, let me call your attention to Section 13-4 of the Rules of Golf. It reads:
13-4. Ball in Hazard; Prohibited Actions
Except as provided in the Rules, before making a stroke at a ball that is in a hazard (whether a bunker or a water hazard) or that, having been lifted from a hazard, may be dropped or placed in the hazard, the player must not:
a. Test the condition of the hazard or any similar hazard;
b. Touch the ground in the hazard or water in the water hazard with his hand or a club; or
c. Touch or move a loose impediment lying in or touching the hazard.
Exceptions:
1. Provided nothing is done that constitutes testing the condition of the hazard or improves the lie of the ball, there is no penalty if the player (a) touches the ground or loose impediments in any hazard or water in a water hazard as a result of or to prevent falling, in removing an obstruction, in measuring or in marking the position of, retrieving, lifting, placing or replacing a ball under any Rule or
(b) places his clubs in a hazard.2. After making the stroke, if the ball is still in the hazard or has been lifted from thehazard and may be dropped or placed in the hazard, the player may smooth sand or soil in the hazard, provided nothing is done to breach Rule 13-2 with respect to his next stroke. If the ball is outside the hazard after the stroke, the player may smooth sand or soil in the hazard without restriction.
3. If the player makes a stroke from a hazard and the ball comes to rest in another hazard, Rule 13-4a does not apply to any subsequent actions taken in the hazard from which the stroke was made.
Note: At any time, including at address or in the backward movement for the stroke, the player may touch, with a club or otherwise, any obstruction, any construction declared by the Committee to be an integral part of the course or any grass, bush, tree or other growing thing.
Penalty For Breach of Rule:
Match play - Loss of hole; Stroke play - Two strokes.
On the first playoff hole in yesterday’s PGA tour event (The Heritage), Brian Davis violated section 13-4 of the rules of golf. It was a clear unintentional rules violation when Davis barely brushed that piece of straw on his backswing in the hazard on the 18th hole at Harbour Town Golf Links. Unintentional or not, Davis called a rules violation against himself — costing himself the tournament win (which would have been his first PGA tour victory). You can watch the video here.
The media (sports and otherwise) are making a big deal out of this story, but the truth is, golfers call rules violations on themselves all the time. Compare that to the NFL (where Commissioner Roger Goodell is considering how to punish Steelers Quarterback Ben Roethlisberger for his off-the-field conduct), the NBA (where Kevin Garnett was suspended for game 2 of the Celtics playoff series vs. Miami for his on-the-court conduct), or even Major League Baseball (where Mark McGwire is cheered upon his return as a coach for the St. Louis Cardinals despite admitted to having used steroids).
The Rules of Golf are a must-read - whether you play the game or not. You should read the rules, period. But again, I think the reason is because you can learn so much more about a game or sport, or whatever, if you understand what the rules are designed to keep from happening. What you do with the information after that is up to you.
Must-Read: Baby Bucket List
by Brian Reich | 16 Apr 2010, 10:21am
Rather than share a must-read today, I want to create one. And I need your help.
At some point in the next few hours my wife and I will welcome baby #2 to the family. I want to create a list of all the things that my baby should do in his/her life: books to read, albums to own, places to visit, experiences to have, etc. In other words, I want to create a baby bucket list.
I already have a bunch of things that I know will be on the list: reading Harold and The Purple Crayon (my favorite book), visiting every baseball stadium/ballpark (something I was able to do during the summer before I went to college), putting a live version of AC/DC’s Thunderstruck on your iPod (its the song I use to psyche myself up), and seeing Grizzly bears in their natural habitat in Alaska.
But there are so many other ideas, and categories, to consider. Is there a cookie somewhere in the world he/she must taste, a movie he/she must watch,a sight he/she must behold? What are the big ideas and what are the small ones? What are the grand adventures that should be pursued and what are the everyday activities that shouldn’t be overlooked? Will he/she have to travel to check some of the things off the list? What could he/she plan to do alone and what might he/she share with someone else?
Anything and everything can and will go on the list. What happens after that is TBD. My kid may decide not to do any of the things we suggest, or he/she may try to check everything off the list.
He/she has a whole life lead, and plenty of time… so I want the list to be long. My goal is to put 1000 things on the list. I can’t do that by myself. Even if I could, the list wouldn’t be as good as the one that we create together.
So, what should be on my baby bucket list?
TAGS
: Baby Bucket List Must-Read
4 comments
