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

I Heart Van Jones

by Brian Reich | 10 Jan 2009, 4:57pm

I Heart Van Jones

I don’t know Van Jones.  But, I heart Van Jones.

Van Jones is President of Green For All, a national organization dedicated to ‘building an inclusive green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty.”  He is the author of The Green Collar Economy, a best-selling book that delivers a real solution that both rescues our economy and saves the environment.  And he is the leading advocate for so-called “Green Jobs” - which is really anything that helps put American on the path to a more environmentally sustainable future, such as jobs in public transit, jobs in green building, jobs in energy efficiency, even traditional blue-collar manufacturing jobs (as long as what you are building is green).

I have several friends and colleagues who know Van Jones, have worked with him, or have devoted themselves to his cause — and they have told me over and over that he is one of our nation’s most passionate and articulate social and economic justice advocates.  Based on the profile of him that I just read in The New Yorker, I certainly agree.

That’s not why I like Van Jones though.  His accomplishments speak for themselves.  His book is a good read.  And on top of all that, I happen to agree and support his approach to addressing the economic and environmental challenges facing our nation.

The reason I like Van Jones, however, is because of HOW he does his work.

Elizabeth Kolbert writes in The New Yorker profile about a meeting between Jones and Scott Lang, the mayor of New Bedford, MA, a former whaling town now facing “a long list of problems - failing schools, high unemployment, gang violence.” The mayor is committed to rebuilding the economy of New Bedford and agrees with Jones that green-collar jobs are key to that effort.  But when Jones suggests the mayor hire a group of teenagers as a part of his initiative, the mayor won’t bite. The conversation goes back and forth and the mayor refuses to commit.  Kolbert notes, however, that Jones was able to get this concession  “I’m willing to meet people halfway or more,’ she quotes the mayor saying.

In the very next paragraph the articles describes Jones telling a teenager he had met earlier that day that the mayor was interested in working with him.  Kolbert, who was at the meeting and had a different impression of the mayor’s comments, presses Jones on this interpretation  Jones responds:

“I’m not looking for the points of difference. I’m looking for the points of commonality. I’ve trained my mind so that people can say twenty-seven things that might be objectionable, but as soon as they say one, that twenty-eighth thing, that’s in the right direction, that’s where I’m going to go in the conversation. I think that’s really important in a country as diverse as ours, to listen. So this guy, he says, I don’t want this, I don’t want that. But he says, I want everybody to be included. Well, that’s all I need. Dayenu.”

Dayenu indeed.  By focusing on the areas of agreement, Van Jones is able to build relationships and create opportunities for moving forward — even with people who don’t fully understand or accept his vision.  If you want to truly change the world, create a new way of thinking, push the envelope… this is how you should be approaching your work.  Incremental change is no longer enough.  We need significant, across-the-board, top-to-bottom, macro level change.

What we are doing isn’t working anymore.  We need a new economy.  We need a new politics.  We need a new way of communicating, and that includes marketing, and media.  We need to re-think, re-build, re-consider, and re-fashion everything.  If you want to do that, have that kind of impact, you have to think and act like Van Jones.

Anyway, that’s why I heart Van Jones.

TAGS : Elizabeth Kolbert Green Collar Economy Green For All New Beford Massachusetts Scott Lang The New Yorker Van Jones
2 comments