First things first...

First, I want to thank everyone who has taken the time to write or call with words of support- it means more to me than I could say. I am blessed to have a small, but warm and caring, group of friends. I say thank you for you every time I pray.

And now for something completely different...

The leadership and media have been trying to spread an important, but ironic, message: stop the bleeding. Just in my limited exposure to the news of the day this weekend, I heard quite a few times the call for people to stop pulling their money out of the market in response to what has been happening. I applaud efforts to encourage people to resist the hype and to begin to use some sense and recover their sanity. I do, however, find it ironic that the talking heads of the news media are echoing this because they are doing the same thing with this financial blip that they did with housing and lending.

When the housing market began its inevitable and warranted correction and the access to risky loan programs, like no doc and interest only, began to dry up, all the media hopped on the bandwagon and played Henny Penny. Henny Penny was the hen that was hit by something small, an acorn if I can remember, and cried that "The sky is falling!" and whipped her neighbors up into a frenzy. Well, the media has shown several times now that it can do it better than her.

The real estate market, like the stock market, is a market segment that has a large subsidiary impact. What I find is that is a good barometer for how people and companies are feeling about their situation and future. The real estate market, while based on common sense, is about hopes, dreams, and the perceived future. People don't just look for a "house", they look for a home- a search they place a lot of emotional involvement into. The stock market is about how companies and speculators think or feel things are going to happen based on the indicators they receive today. It is a combination of gut instinct and fact, and with substantial amounts of money to be made or lost by the speed at which you act, sometimes gut feelings rule the day. The point is that with emotion playing so large a part of the equation in these key sections of our economy, anything that plays on fears in these areas can cause a catastrophe.

In steps the media; with making the difficulties of a few seem like the difficulties of many, with innuendo and lack of consequences for their actions, and with their desire to raise the intensity of an issue to get a reaction. All of this is for the almighty rating, which they use to dictate their advertising rates. The more panic they create, the more people will feel the need to tune in so that they can keep on top of what's happening and feel in control. The more they tune in, the higher the ratings and the more valuable the advertising time becomes. The more valuable that air time becomes, the more money the media outlets make for doing exactly the same amount of work. Whether consciously or subconsciously, the media has a reason for creating as much panic as possible.

Think the media doesn't do it, or that they don't do it on purpose? Look at the first OJ trial, the Caylee case, the Peterson case, and the death of Anna Nicole. We all know at least the basic details of the story there because the media had it in our face almost 24/7. I'm sure that you can think of more without a lot of effort. But let's look at the reality. Did the second OJ trial get much media attention at all? No, because it was anti-climactic and did not hold the same drama level as the first case; there was no dead blonde and her lover. Is Caylee or Lacy Peterson the only child or spouse that's been murdered and the body never found? Did anybody care about Anna Nicole's exploits before the birth of her child, the death of her son, and her death: all which took place in a short period of time? Did any of these events warrant, or have enough impact on their own to merit, such devoted reporting? We all know the answer- NO. But look at the result. The sensationalism of the OJ trial almost caused a riot when the verdict was handed down, Caylee and Lacy took valuable time, attention and manpower away from equally compelling cases and cost the taxpayers a lot of money. Anna Nicole dominated the news for days, at the expense of other stories that we really needed to see. Don't think that the media hyping a story can do damage? The "runaway bride" cost the taxpayers of Gwinnett County so much money that they sued her for the hundreds of thousands they spent trying to find and rescue her so that they could satisfy the accompanying public outcry. Without the media picking up and running with the story, she would not have felt so much pressure and shame about running away. she would have come home sooner and not have caused so many resources to be wasted.

The media would blame it on us; we tune in, and they are only giving us "what we want to see and hear. After all, it's only entertainment. We have to fill slow news days somehow". What they forget is that by having access to what's going on in the world in a way that most people don't and by reporting on it, they put themselves in the position of being responsible for how they do it. They are paid well for their responsibility (do any of us make millions for talking into a camera?), but don't want to take responsibility for the destruction they create when they are not responsible in their actions.

The media has the power to do a lot of good by turning the public's eyes to the bad AND the good in this world, to the positive things we can do to make the world a better place, as well as to highlight the evils that exist in it. To bring hope, not just fear. Yes, we need to know the "bad stuff", but exactly what stuff and to what extent? We have to be aware of what is going on. But the media needs a new definition of fair and balanced that includes a balance of good and bad, negative criticism and constructive solutions; a picture of the world that shows that while it is not perfect a lot of the time, it's a pretty darn good place to be most of the time. The media needs to show that there is room for the world to be better, but that positive change can and does happen every day, and not just by national and world leaders. The media thinks that we don't want to hear that kind of stuff; I know I do, for one. I'd invest money in it. It would net them more from me than the crap they peddle now that I don't watch. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

The media belongs to us; when are we going to start exercising control over them and over ourselves and the view of the world that we'd like to promote? Next time a story about Caylee comes on, change the channel or turn the TV off. If we did that simple thing more often, I think we'd be amazed at how things would change. Let's take our world view back and look at both sides of an issue or situation, at the good and bad of the world. Let's use logic and reason, not fear and emotion, to color our responses to life's challenges so that we can make good, solid decisions with more positive long term impact. Let's be responsible, both to ourselves, our neighbors, and the world at large, and expect that which represents us and our interests to be responsible as well. We'll all be the better for it.