Michael Olesker's "Tonight at 6"

My wife and I are usually in bed before the 11 o'clock news, so we seldom see what passes for local news in Baltimore. However, on Friday nights after watching one of our favorite shows Numb3rs, we sometimes linger on Channel 13 and catch the first segment of Eyewitness News. This is often accompanied by our own home version of Mystery Science Theatre 3000 as we watch the unintentionally hilarious circus that supposed to be serious news:

"Why is Dennis Edwards standing in front of the county police headquarters at 11 o'clock at night when the crime he's reporting on occurred this afternoon? Go back to the TV station, Dennis, it's cold outside!"

"Why is Bob Turk reporting the weather from the WJZ-TV parking lot? We don't have to see your breath to believe that it's in the mid-20s right now!"

"What do you mean there are no details about the shootout on North Avenue? How much you wanna bet at least one of the victims is a drug dealer?"

Oscar Levant, the remarkable pianist, composer, actor, and alcoholic, called the old news reels of his day "a series of catastrophes, ended by a fashion show." Watching the nightly shows, it doesn't look like we've advanced any since then. A typical Eyewitness News report consists of shootings, fires, car wrecks, and general mayhem from around the globe finished off with some feel-good piece about a dog who saved his 80-year-old master from choking to death. By the end of the show, you feel distraught but somehow no more enlightened about your community than you were before the broadcast. Such is the point of journalist Michael Olesker's book Tonight at 6: A Daily Show Masquerading as Local TV News.

For almost 20 years, Olesker provided a commentary five nights a week on WJZ's newscast. In 1983 when he started his gig, he was already a well-known columnist for The Baltimore Sun, providing daily insights into the pulse of Baltimore and its neighborhoods. WJZ had the hottest TV newscast in the city, thanks to the amiable rapport of its two anchormen Jerry Turner and Al Sanders. Olesker seemed to be plunked in as a way to bring some respectability to a newscast that was considered long on the warm and fuzzy, but short on real news. No one seemed to care, however, because everyone liked Jerry and Al so much. Two middle-aged men, one black-one white, one dignified authority figure-one the affable jokester, who created ratings magic, often pulling in more viewers than the other two major stations combined. The city loved Jerry and Al, and as long as they were delivering the news, no one questioned the vapid quality of the content.

TV news is, after all, about visuals and emotion rather than content and insight. Show the scene of the murder with police car lights flashing and the outline of a body on the cold, wet asphalt. Cut to the grieving mother who has just lost a son barely out of his teens. It's raw, it's emotional, but how does that help the person sitting at home watching the broadcast. From Olesker's point of view, the high murder rate in Baltimore needs to be reported in the context of the root causes such as high unemployment for black males, underachieving public schools, and a shrinking blue-collar base. Television news can't be bothered with such details. They have to send a film crew out and get pictures. The "reporters" in TV news are actually broadcasters who know TV, but very little about journalism. Stick a mic in someone's face and ask questions, then put it on the air. No time to check facts or dig for an angle. Just make it look good.

I got my first taste of how TV news works when I was doing public relations for a community college. I would send out press releases to the local TV stations if I thought a story had visuals that might interest them or involved politicians or other well-known people. If one of the TV stations contacted me about coming out to do a story based on my release, they would often dictate when they were coming. It was up to me to line up key people for them to interview and make sure things would be happening that they could film when they arrived. I also had to compile background material and send it to them ahead of time. At the designated time, the reporter and a cameraman would breeze in, whereupon I would have to take them to where they would interview the key contacts and film whatever it was that would look good on the news. Surprisingly, most people were more than willing to accommodate the demands of the TV crew. They would be on television, after all. That night on the news, I would see a reporter reading lines into the camera that were lifted directly from my press release, followed by snippets of the interviews and various shots. After all that work on my part, the piece would last less than 90 seconds. It didn't matter to anyone that the reporter was taking credit for other people's work. We got on TV.

Olesker points out that much of TV news is that way, with stories often lifted verbatim from the daily newspaper. Despite all their claims of "team coverage" and "in-depth reporting," most of it is shallow at best and down right inaccurate at worst.

Channel 13 lost Jerry Turner to throat cancer in the late 80s, and Al Sanders passed away a few years later. They were replaced by Denise Koch, an actress who started at the station doing hang-gliding and surfing segments called Daring Denise, and Vic Carter, a tongue-tied newsreader from Atlanta who was known at his previous station as "Bryant Stumble." The ratings for Eyewitness News over the past decade or so have slipped severely, often beat out by Channel 11's Action News, which decided to do something crazy and focus on (gasp!) journalism. But Channel 13 continues to stumble on with their style-over-substance approach.

Tonight at 6 is a wonderful book for those who have lived in Baltimore for the last several decades and remember the days of Jerry and Al, but I'm sure anyone in the U.S. can relate to these anecdotes of vapid local news. Every major city has an Eyewitness News or an Action News, and it's all about the same. The bigger question from Olesker's book is why the great champion of journalistic integrity stayed at the station for 19 years. He answers in a cursory way, citing the fact that he had to feed his family and that his commentaries had nothing to do with the news portion of the show. Fair enough, I suppose. He also points out that he did complain to management once in awhile, but that hardly justifies staying in a system he despised for almost two decades. What makes that even more disturbing is that he never had any intention of writing about it until he was fired. He was willing to play along if the checks kept coming. Once that stopped, he would cash in with a book. Somehow all this taints his integrity even as he attacks the integrity of his former co-workers.

Still, if you are someone who is exasperated with the stupidity of television news, Tonight at 6 can be a cathartic read.

Chasing the Elusive National Spotlight

The Baltimore Sun ran a story today about how the Baltimore Ravens are not getting the respect they deserve. Of course, the Ravens always say the lack of attention fuels their competitive fire, but for many fans, this just feels like more hatred for the team that was once the Cleveland Browns. Even I, in my more heated moments, jump on the paranoia bandwagon when I marvel at how little attention our team gets even when we are playing well. It's hard to ignore when John Harbaugh gets zero votes for coach of the year or Joe Flacco gets zero votes for rookie of the year. Most Valuable Player? Give it to Payton Manning. Everybody loves Payton.

It would be easy to believe that the rest of the country hates us, and while I definitely believe that the NFL will never forgive us for taking Cleveland's team (like Indianapolis took ours, but that was okay for some reason), I don't think there are all that many Ravens haters out there. The real issue is that we have such a narrow market. With the Redskins to our south and Pittsburgh and Philadelphia to our north, the Ravens market is basically the upper half of Maryland. Don't get me wrong, we have a rabid fan base. I kinda felt sorry for the Dolphins when I saw all those empty seats at their playoff game. It's a playoff game, for God's sake, and Miamians can't be bothered to come off the beach for that ?!! Even when the Ravens are playing lousy, M&T Bank Stadium is packed with 70,000 plus screaming fans. It's an intensely loyal following, but it will never extend very far since there are so many teams clustered in such a small area.

The only way for the Ravens to cultivate a following outside the Maryland area is to develop an image that transcends local pride. When Brian Billick was coach, he cultivated a star-driven, bad-ass image not unlike the hated Oakland Raiders. Football fans found it easy to dislike us with all our trash talking and penalties and tantrums on the field. The new coach, John Harbaugh, has cleaned up the team, instilled discipline, and has placed the focus on team rather than individual stars. This could go a long way to changing our image.

We also need a star that people will like. Ray Lewis is the heart and soul of the Ravens, but the general public will always remember that awkward murder case from almost 10 years ago. Despite all the good he's done, that incident has tainted him forever. Also, despite all his natural charisma, he comes across as stiff and stilted when he does TV commercials. He's just not natural in front of a camera.

In Joe Flacco, we have our franchise quarterback, but I doubt that he has the charisma to become a national media darling. He's a decent, hardworking, blue-collar kinda kid, but they don't call him "Joe Cool" for nothing. He is pretty flat and unemotional most of the time. The only commercial he's done so far is for a local restaurant, and it's laughably bad. He makes Elvis Presley look like Robert DeNiro.

Actually, it seems the very thing I like about the Ravens is probably the thing that will keep them from grabbing the national spotlight, and that is that they are a team of hardworking professionals who do their job well rather than a handful of individual stars with a team around them. The reason why the Dallas Cowboys became "America's Team" in the late 70s, in my opinion, was that they had no-nonsense guys like Roger Staubach and a straight-arrow coach like Tom Landry. Since then, they have more than spent that goodwill with an egomaniac owner and a handful of whiny, spoiled divas.

The media may want to hang on to that "America's Team" image because it's easy for them to promote, and the almost daily soap opera that is the Dallas Cowboys makes for tantalizing coverage, but the rest of the country has already tuned out. When it comes to football, America likes selfless, hardworking players, not selfish stars. The irony is that we want to single out those who don't want to be singled out. Perhaps that's why only a handful of them can actually play the balancing act. The Manning boys do it pretty well, but most get tripped up after awhile. Tony Romo is a nice guy, but the minute he put the moves on Jessica Simpson, he was tainted by the tabloid bug.

So it's likely that the Ravens will never really grab the national media nod that they deserve, even if they go all the way to the Super Bowl. However, fans have to keep in mind that few teams or players grab national attention, and many who do get it for all the wrong reasons. As long as they remain a great team that wins football games, who cares what the rest of the country thinks?

Obama Swings the Pendulum to the Left

A couple of years ago, my wife gave me a key fob with an LCD display that ticks off the days until President Bush leaves office. At the time, the day seemed so far off, I couldn't bear to look at it. Today, I see that it says "75" and we can be assured that the new president will not carry on the Bush legacy.

Barack Obama's victory over John McCain did not occur simply because the Republicans ran a poor campaign (although...Palin? Seriously, what were you thinking?). The victory is really about a philosophical message that ran out of steam and never lived up to its promise. I can't help but think that what happened to the Republicans over the last 28 years was not unlike what happened to the Democrats between the 1930s and the 1960s. The country was solidly Republican all through the 1920s, but Herbert Hoover's inability to deal with the Great Depression forced the country to try something more radical by electing Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It can be argued that the flurry of new legislation that FDR pushed through Congress never really did anything to end the Depression, but that was beside the point. FDR's confidence, energy, and charismatic charm gave people hope and strengthened the perception that the USA was still a great country with her best years still ahead, and perception can go a long way in motivating people to bring that vision to reality.

The New Deal philosophy of FDR carried on even during the 1950s. Despite having an enormously popular two-term Republican president, many of the once radical concepts from the 30s, like Social Security and strong labor unions, were by then commonly accepted as normal birthrights. It wasn't until the administration of Lyndon Johnson that the wheels fell off of the New Deal train. If FDR's programs were a flurry, Johnson's New Society was a blizzard and the country was fatigued by the onslaught of social change. Rising budget deficits, difficulties in the economy, and a war that was going on too long and consuming to much in national lives and treasure made Lyndon Johnson one of the most hated men in America. His own staff could not put together one public event that was not heavily peppered with protestors and hecklers.

Johnson saw the writing on the wall and chose not to seek another term. Vice-President Hubert Humphrey chose to run in his place. Although he was a decent man and a fine public servant, he couldn't distance himself from the Johnson policies that he had supported for so many years. The New Deal was old and not looking like much of a deal anymore. Americans swung to the relative calm of the Republican Party.

Had it not been for Watergate, Nixon could've led the country into a period of new conservatism, but it was not meant to be. The torch was instead picked up by Ronald Reagan, an actor who could sell a new vision of America just as easily as he sold Borax on Death Valley Days. Reagan inherited a country in a deep economic crisis from President Jimmy Carter, the Democrats' version of Herbert Hoover. Reagan proposed a new approach to government through lower taxes and spending cuts to balance the budget. He cut taxes, but lacked the will to cut spending, creating even greater deficits than before. With the exception of a few boom years in the middle of his presidency, he left office with the economy in much the same condition as he had found it, but as with FDR, this meant little. Reagan made Americans feel good about themselves again. He saw the world through the lens of an MGM Andy Hardy movie, and he was charismatic enough to sell a large chunk of the country on the same delusion. As I said, perception goes a long way.

The 1990s were boom years, fueled by young entrepreneurs who believed in the conservative philosophy that Americans could build their own future without government handouts. The last decade of the 20th century saw the fulfillment of the Reagan philosophy, even though it was presided over by a Democratic president, Bill Clinton. Clinton was the best Republican the Democrats ever produced, balancing the budget, reforming welfare, and stimulating an economic boom like none seen since the Industrial Revolution. And then came George W. Bush....

While Clinton was conservatism wrapped in a palatable humanist coating, Bush 43 was hardcore conservatism wrapped in an incompetent boob. While he started with some good ideas about lowering taxes and reforming education, he was soon in way over his head with 9/11. Instead of strengthening our borders and relentlessly pursuing Osama Bin Laden, George W. chose to exploit America's fears by getting them to sign off on his personal adventure in Iraq to prove to his father that he could finish the job Bush 41 couldn't. More wasted American lives and treasure. The balanced budgets were gone, the surplus turned into a huge deficit, and Osama Bin Laden was still free after more than seven years.

And while the Republicans continued to talk about smaller government and lower taxes, they signed off on a nearly trillion dollar nationalization of America's major financial institutions, just so their corporate fat cat friends didn't have to go down with the ship they so carelessly drove into the iceberg. The message didn't add up to reality. We could no longer ignore the little man behind the curtain. The emperor truly had no clothes.

So now the pendulum swings once again to the left. I can't say whether Barack Obama will be a great president or not. His inexperience leads me to believe that there will be many bumps ahead. But Obama was able to motivate a large number of young Americans to get involved in the political process. He made them believe in a future that looked more like what they wanted it to be rather than what the Baby Boomers created for them. And perception goes a long way.

Frost/Nixon

I just saw the trailer for the new Ron Howard movie Frost/Nixon, and I think it looks pretty good. Here's a link if you want to see it. This film was originally supposed to come out in June, but I guess the studio thought it would get lost in all the superhero stuff that was out at the time. I can't wait to see it, even though Frank Langella sounds like he's doing a Sean Connery impersonation rather than one of the 37th President of the United States.

Watergate was the first major national event that I was aware of as a kid. Vietnam had already been going on for some time before I was aware of it, and the war was already winding down by the early 70s. But Watergate hit like a thunderclap in the summer of '72 and just kept building over the next two years. I was seven years old when it started and nine years old when Nixon resigned, so I wasn't able to follow all the twists and turns of the drama. All I knew was that something important was happening during my lifetime. My parents could talk about where they were when Pearl Harbor was bombed; maybe I would be able to talk about Watergate. In retrospect, I had no real perspective on it at the time. It appeared that the President had done something wrong. In my mind, he should be punished and be done with it. I didn't understand all the chattering over it. Eventually Nixon resigned, and I wondered why it took so long.

A few years later, I tried to watch the Frost/Nixon interviews to finally get the whole story from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I was about 12 at the time and thought I was now mature enough to follow it. But the early interviews were about his time in Congress and as Vice-President, and I lost interest before they ever got around to Watergate.

When I took journalism in high school, I thought it might be a good idea to read All the President's Men by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. I was fascinated at how the book read like a suspense novel with Woodward and Bernstein slowly peeling away the layers of deception and cover-up. It got me excited about a career as an investigative reporter...for about two weeks.

During the 80s, documentaries started popping up about the Watergate Era and I finally started to understand what exactly happened. The release of the tapes also allowed for a clearer sense of "what the President knew and when he knew it." In the 90s, after Nixon passed away, I finally got around to reading Woodward and Bernstein's book The Final Days, and I developed a stronger sense of sympathy for the man and his tragic trajectory through history. I've since read a great deal about Nixon and Watergate. I even suffered through Oliver Stone's cockeyed movie.

When the play Frost/Nixon hit Broadway, I wanted to see it but knew that wasn't really practical, so I did the next best thing and read David Frost's sort of companion book, titled Frost/Nixon: Behind the Scenes of the Nixon Interview. This is a fascinating account of the verbal sparring that went on between Frost's people and Nixon's people and how much was at stake for both men in regard to the interviews. Frost is quick to point out inaccuracies in the play, which I appreciate. I hate watching a docu-drama and wondering what is real and what is creative license. Most importantly, the book illustrates the internal struggle Nixon fought as he was pressed to reveal more about himself. A part of him wanted to come clean, but the old, reserved, secretive Nixon resisted. His ultimate breakdown on camera is moving and speaks volumes about the man.

I can forgive Richard Nixon, at least where Watergate is concerned, because ultimately he only hurt himself. The election would've been a landslide in his favor anyway, so the break-in was completely unnecessary. He hurt other people, of course, but they were willing servants who would've suffered even worse for their guy. Watergate, to me, is a compelling drama whose reality is palatable, unlike our modern day tragedy of George W. Bush and the Iraq War. President Bush's transgressions created unforgivable pain and suffering for thousands, none of whom are Bush or his family.

Singular Joy for the Lonely Athlete

Tomorrow afternoon (Saturday, October 4th), a section of York Road in Towson, Maryland will be blocked off for a parade featuring local Olympic participants, primarily Michael Phelps. Phelps grew up in the neighborhood where I currently reside, so I guess it makes sense that the locals would want to have a parade in his honor running alongside the streets and schools where he spent his youth. I was momentarily tempted to wander down to the end of my street and take a gander at the proceedings, but I quickly lost interest.

I'm not sure what it is, but I can't get all that worked up about athletes who participate in individual sports. I enjoy watching them compete during the Olympics simply to see the competition, but I have no burning interest in the individuals themselves, even one who once lived so near to where I live now. I've never fallen prey to the cult of personality that surrounds a Bruce Jenner or a Mary Lou Retton or a Michael Phelps. I've flogged my brain about this and the only answer I can come up with is that their achievement has no connection with me whatsoever. These athletes found a sport that they excelled in, pursued that sport passionately, and were able to achieve recognition in that sport. Bully for them! But what does that have to do with me? Why should I be excited because they've achieved fame and fortune? It's not changing my life one wit. I just don't feel the buzz.

On the other hand, I do somehow get wildly excited about football, for example. I live and die with the ups and downs of the Ravens, nervously squirming in my seat during the entire game, cussing them out when they make a bad play, and screaming with joy when they score a touchdown (a truly remarkable event for the Ravens, believe you me!). Two years ago, when we were on a roll that culminated in a 13-3 season, I was chugging that purple Kool-Aid like water and walking on air (that is, until the playoffs). So why can I be so caught up in football and not so much with individual sports? I guess there truly is no "I" in "team."

For some reason, because a group of individuals come together to struggle for a common victory, I feel as those I am also a part of that team. I am the proverbial "12th man." Sure, I'm not out on that field or providing any input into the outcome of the game, but I'm still there. I follow every injury of every player, I choke up at every human interest story the local media can drag out (forget the national media saying anything about the Ravens), and I praise or curse the coaching staff depending on their actions. In my mind, I am a Raven, and I'm sure all fans of all team sports have that same feeling.

With individual sports, it's just that one person out there, doing his or her best with no outside help. I know, I did no more to help the Ravens have a 13-3 season in 2006 than I did to help Michael Phelps win 8 gold medals this summer, but the fact that there are 11 guys on the field, and 41 others on the sidelines, gives me the sense that I am a team mate as well. Watching the lonely runner or swimmer or skier reinforces the sense that the athlete's thrill of victory or agony of defeat is truly a singular experience. Therefore, any parade for such athletes is not a shared experience of joy, but simply a large number of people supplying additional joy for one person. I'm afraid I have so little joy for myself, I can't afford to give it away to those who already have more than enough.

High Risk Means No Risk For Those at the Top

My mind is still reeling as I ponder the potential ramifications of the recent shake up in the financial markets. Not only will this bail out cost more taxpayer money than I can possibly imagine, we have effectively nationalized our financial system. While the Republicans rail against a national health care system, President Bush showed no hesitation in spending hundreds of billions of dollars to buy up a load of worthless holdings from major financial institutions which were thought to be too big to go under. Everything Mr. Bush does sends the same message: If you are rich, we will always extend a lifeline; if you are poor, suck it pal!

So what got us into this horrible mess? As with any financial mess: greed. When you couple greed with a regulatory system that is antiquated and disinclined to intervene, you have a bomb waiting to go off. Having worked for a major investment firm for many years, I know that the layers of regulation regarding financial institutions are deep and complex. But just like our complicated income tax system, there are always those who can circumvent the system if they really want to. Fortunately, I happened to work for a company that believed in running a tight ship, but I was also aware that many of the regulations we followed were created in the early 30s in response to the Stock Market Crash of 1929. A few extra precautions were put into place after the next big crash of 1987, but surprisingly little was done during the 90s when financial institutions grew by leaps and bounds.

The proliferation of employee-funded retirement plans and the feeble interests offered by bank instruments pushed millions of Americans into stocks and bonds. Investment firms grew exponentially during the 90s, not necessarily because of their investment genius, but simply from market penetration. The flood of money into the markets in turn spurred on these markets to ever greater heights. The more people wanted in, the higher the value of stocks went, which drew even more people in, which drove stock prices even higher, and so on. By the late 90s, you could invest in just about anything and it would make money over the short term. Investment firms made money by staying open, basically.

I worked as a lowly cog in one such investment firm during the 90s. While the investment managers and administrative bigwigs treated themselves to lavish raises, bonuses, and stock options, us worker drones were given annual raises barely above a cost-of-living increase and year-end bonuses that were the monetary equivalent of Chevy Chase's Jelly-of-the-Month Club bonus from National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. Granted, I was not working the trading desk or directly effecting any influence over our investment products, but I was a part of an army who took care of the shareholders' daily needs and made sure they were happy. And in an environment where any boob could make money in the stock market, the major deciding factor for most shareholders was the service they received. But that was always discounted by the people in power. It was their brilliant financial minds that drove their success, or so they thought.

The bubble burst in 2000. The markets dropped and no amount of trading finesse could create gains. Mutual fund managers who were once given rock star treatment by the financial press were suddenly vilified by the shareholders. Some slunk away into oblivion to pursue "other opportunities." Still, those who remained continued to receive ample raises and bonuses each year while my colleagues and I either received less or were laid off. Those who suffered most were the shareholders and the middle-class employees.

With the stock market suffering, the next area of exploitation became the housing market. Home buyers had already been benefiting from a decade of low-interest-rate mortgages, but avarice created the highly risky sub-prime mortgage. Any reasonable thinking person would know that you don't talk someone of limited means into an adjustable rate mortgage. The introductory rate they receive at the beginning is probably the rate they can afford. Once the adjusting kicks in, they are priced out of their mortgage. Secondarily, because the initial rate is so low, home buyers convinced themselves they could pay more for a house than they once would simply because the low interest rate made the monthly payment reasonable. Of course, that monthly payment was the highest - not the lowest - they wanted to pay. Raise that adjustable rate a few ticks and suddenly they were on the verge of default.

The banking piranhas who pushed these loans knew all this of course. They knew these people would be sucking wind in a year or two, but every new mortgage meant a commission. They had to keep making those commissions. If the suckers were out on their ear in a year or two, that was their dumb luck. I can't really argue that point - those who don't read or care to understand the fine print should be held accountable. But when an avalanche of bad debt comes crashing down, everyone gets hit, not just the poor saps who took out the mortgages.

Of course, that's not quite true. The bigwigs who ran these financial institutions into the ground with ridiculous risk - those same bigwigs who received enormous salaries and bonuses during the run up - are now bailed out by Uncle Sam. We, the taxpayers, have to pay for the greed of those who already had too much. In return, we get a load of bad holdings that will likely never amount to anything. Lucky us.

So the risk/reward message I preached to so many shareholders for so many years, and the warnings I carefully laid out for them that high risk investments may lead to big losses, don't hold true anymore - at least for the ones at the top. They take all the risk they want and if it blows up in their face, the taxpayers bail them out. No accountability for those who finance the campaigns of Congresspeople.

It's estimated that this financial bail out may cost $1 trillion. And a national health care plan would be too expensive? Oh right, that's for the poor people. They don't count.

Where's the Love for the Ravens?

I'm becoming increasingly irritated with the national media's coverage of the NFL. They tend to treat it like a TV series where you have a handful of main characters (in this case, The Colts, The Patriots, The Cowboys, Last Year's Super Bowl Champs, and whatever team Farve is currently playing on), the semi-regular guest stars (usually The Steelers, The Eagles, The Seahawks, and maybe The Jaguars), and the bit players and extras (the remaining 23 teams). The Ravens are akin to a slab-bound crystal meth addict on an episode of CSI.

Case in point: The Ravens beat The Cincinnati Bengals 17 to 10 in their season opener Sunday in front of nearly 71,000 fans in M&T Bank Stadium. We're starting the season with a new head coach, mostly new coaching staff, a re-vamped offensive line, and a rookie quarterback who was meant to be a third-stringer until two weeks ago. And we won! So I'm watching Football Night in America, and instead of focusing on this Cinderella story, the ex-jocks in the glass cage can only rant about how poorly the Bengals played, as if they had money riding on the game or something. They literally did not mention the Ravens at all except to say "Flacco Who?" The Number 18 First Round Draft Choice, you big boobs!!!!

I realize that The Bengals are a crappy team and there's a lot more football down the road, but you can a least throw a bone to a team that struggling to rebound from a 5-11 season. Besides, no matter how well we do, the national media seems to take some sadistic glee in ignoring us or downplaying our success. Back in 2006, when we had won our first four games in a row, I was still hearing more about Tony Romo and he hadn't even taken his first snap as a starter yet. They had already elevated him to the calibre of Manning and Brady before he had done anything. Such is the nature of star-making from the likes of NBC and ESPN. The hot-and-heavy bromance that John Madden has for Tony Romo is truly distasteful!

When I was a kid, I loved to watch the Olympics on ABC because they always did those up-close-and-personal segments showing how some poor family in Podunk, Iowa hauled their kid to the skating rink at four o'clock every morning and ate Mac N' Cheese for eight years so they could afford to buy her proper skates and outfits. I loved that stuff because it showed the true sacrifice of the underdog with a dream. The overcoming of adversity to rise to the top. We don't seem to care about that anymore. We just want to see people who are automatically winners through birth or connections or dumb luck. Those struggling for greatness are viewed indifferently by the media. They'd rather play sicophants to those who are already on the top than seek out the true human drama in the up-and-comers.

The Ravens are going through a come-from-behind transition right now. I understand that former coach Brian Billick and some of the hot-headed veterans on the team created a reputation for The Ravens being the east coast version of The Raiders. But John Harbaugh is working hard to change that image, and he has a lot of rookie players who are buying into his mission. The low number of penalties in yesterday's game point to such a change. Why can't the media jump on this story as it's unfolding rather than take the wait-and-see attitude as they are prone to do? I suspect, even if we miraculously pull out enough wins to get a wild card slot in the playoffs, Bob Costas and the boys will still be wringing their hands and wasting air time over Brady's knee rather than saying anything nice about Baltimore.