Ronald E. Yates's Blog, page 72

Today’s Journalism: No Experience Required?

Good journalism, somebody once said, is a nation talking to itself.

That’s “talking to itself,” not yelling, screaming, shrieking, talking over one another and engaging in verbal bullying.

That is just about all we see on prime-time television–especially cable television–these days.

Primetime cable TV outlets such as Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, etc. continue to produce a proliferation of hosts and pundits with no foundation in journalistic ethics and tradition. Today’s so-called “news shows” more often than not devolve into shoutfests where guests and hosts engage, not in any intelligent discussion of issues, but in contests to see who can talk the loudest or bully those who disagree with them into submission.

That kind of “squawk talk” comes with a steep price. What does the viewing public learn from such exhibitions of bad behavior?

The answer, I would argue, is not much. Because when people are yelling at one another, calling one another names or behaving like petulant children, reasoned discourse disappears and the viewer gets lost in the shrill entertainment of the moment. I believe we have lost the art of reasonable discourse in this country. If you don’t agree with someone, then just talk or shout over them, call them names, make faces and behave like a two-year-old. (Sorry if I have insulted any two-year-olds).

[image error]

Opinion is NOT reporting. Yet those who monitor the recent explosion of misnamed “news shows” say viewers don’t discern between shows with distinct political agendas and those that attempt to present events with a minimum of subjectivity and a maximum of fairness and balance.

When I started out in the newspaper business, reporters were taught that while all of us have biases, as professionals we must work to subordinate those prejudices and keep our opinions out of the stories we report.

It was something that was drilled into our heads, and sound editors and producers made sure it never left.

That is just not the case today. Too many journalists (or those who like to call themselves journalists) feel compelled to insert their opinions in everything they write or produce. A “new” journalism of assertion and vilification has displaced the old journalism of verification. Gossip has become news, fiction is now fact, and biases are a part of straight news reporting.

In fact, many of these “journalists” are not journalists at all, but merely former political operatives and talking heads who wrap themselves in the mantle of journalism when real journalists are risking their lives in places like Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq to bring people reliable news.

The opinion-fueled shows that dominate cable news channels during prime time are far removed from the old-school straight news programs such as the traditional nightly network newscasts with which many of us grew up.

At an awards dinner a few years ago for the late Mike Wallace of CBS 60-Minutes fame, I had an opportunity to talk with Walter Cronkite about the state of television news in general and prime-time cable news in particular. During his reign on CBS Cronkite, who died in 2009, was often referred to as the most trusted journalist in America–an appellation he didn’t take lightly. In fact, he was often referred to as “Uncle Walter.”

[image error]

During our conversation, he decried the lack of ethics and professionalism that is so pervasive today.

“Too many of these people simply don’t care about or have any desire to ferret out the truth,” Cronkite told me. “Too many have intense political or social agendas, and rather than present information as objectively as possible, they want to jam their opinions down our throats.”

And, he added, most of the public cannot distinguish between these faux journalists and real reporters.

The Society of Professional Journalists–an organization I have belonged to since my days as a student at the University of Kansas–has a code of ethics of which most of cable TV’s shouting heads have no concept.

I, as well as a majority of the journalists I have worked within the U.S. and around the world, always worked assiduously to follow that code which consists of several sections.

The ones that stand out most in these days of ersatz journalism (and which are, unfortunately, too often ignored) are:

Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know.
Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

I have purposely NOT mentioned any names of the most egregious offenders here because that would require several more pages of copy. But I urge you to watch these so-called “news shows” with a critical eye and ear from now on.

[image error]

Pay attention to who they have on as guests or as experts–and how often they appear. Watch how those with opposing views are interviewed–or not interviewed. Are they allowed to get their points or arguments across without being shouted down?

What kinds of discussions are held on issues? Are they truth-seeking or attempts merely to reinforce the opinion of the host?

Does each member of a panel have an opportunity to talk without being insulted by the host or by some other panel member?

How you answer these questions will go a long way in helping you to determine if you are watching a frenzied opinion-fest or a real news show designed to get at the truth.

As Thomas Jefferson once said: “An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will.”

So, I will end where I began.

Good journalism is a nation talking to itself–and, I would add, it is a nation that learns from intelligent, rational discourse and has at its core the responsibility to help advance and encourage an informed citizenry.

 

 

 

 

The AR-15 Rifle: Myth & Reality

During one of the Democrat presidential candidate debates, Peter Francis O’Rourke famously (or infamously) declared: “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”

As it turned out, O’Rourke took himself out of the presidential race instead, and therefore, his threat to sabotage the Second Amendment is now moot.

Given all of the chatter out there about assault rifles—and specifically the AR-15—perhaps a little background is needed to clear the air a bit.

I don’t want to get too technical here, but as a U.S. Army veteran, it irks me when politicians, uninformed television pundits, and anti-Second Amendment fanatics rant on and on about so-called “military-grade weapons” owned by the general populace that should be confiscated by the government.

Let me say right off, I do not own an AR-15 nor an “Avtomat Kalashnikova,” otherwise known as an AK-47. However, I have fired both on rifle ranges. Both are excellent rifles, though one (the AR-15) is normally chambered for the smaller .223 or 5.56 mm NATO round, while the other (the AK-47) is chambered for the larger NATO-standard 7.62 mm or 30.06 round.

[image error]                                      Woman firing an AR-15

I should also point out the “AR” in AR-15 does NOT stand for “Assault Rifle,” which is what the unapprised media and lawmakers like to tell you it means. The “AR” in AR-15 stands for “ArmaLite Rifle,” not “Assault Rifle,” or “Automatic Rifle,” or “American Rifle,” or whatever other spurious name Second Amendment opponents have propagated.

ArmaLite is the name of the company that originally produced the AR-15 in 1959. That year, the AR-15 platform’s rights were sold to Colt Firearms, and Colt’s 1963 redesign was adopted by the US Army in Vietnam, tweaked with select-fire capabilities, a heavier barrel, and rebranded the M-16.

As for the other rifle O’Rourke promised to take away from Americans, the “A” in AK-47 stands for “Automatic,” not Assault.

It was invented by Russian weapons designer Mikhail Kalashnikov in the late 1940s for use by the Russian military. It is a military-grade “select fire” weapon and has been outlawed in the U.S. since 1984. “Select fire” means that it can be fired semi-auto or full-auto.

[image error]

All full-auto or burst fired weapons are highly regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and are almost impossible to come by via a legal sale. Of course, criminals, drug cartels, and urban gangs can buy fully automatic weapons like the AK-47 from gun smugglers and other illicit weapons dealers—and do!

So, there is a world of difference between an AK-47 and an AR-15. One is truly an assault rifle, the other is not.

But let’s get something straight. Any rifle, pistol, revolver, shotgun, or even pellet gun can be an “assault weapon” if it is used to attack another person. So, calling an AR-15 an assault weapon compared to a 12-gauge shotgun, a bolt-action .30-caliber hunting rifle, or a .357 magnum revolver is idiotic and demonstrates an individual’s complete ignorance of small arms nomenclature.

When I was in the U.S. Army (active duty and reserves), I qualified “Expert Rifle” with the M-1 Garand, the M-14 (the successor to the M-1), and the M-16. I have never fired the rifles currently used by the U.S. military—the M16A2 or the M-4A1. The M16A2 is a semi-automatic rifle capable of three-shot bursts, while the M-4A1 is a more specialized weapon capable of fully-automatic fire.

The AR-15, as we know it today, is a semi-automatic civilian rifle. Semi-automatic means one trigger pull results in one bullet being fired. Automatic means one trigger pull will result in continuous fire until the magazine is empty or you remove your finger from the trigger.

[image error]                           A boy firing an AR-15

The AR-15 is most commonly chambered in .223, but some platforms accept .22, .308, etc. The AR-15 is light (6.5 pounds), easy to clean and maintain, exceptionally fun to shoot, and is an all-around versatile firearm.

I have had anti-gun advocates ask why any hunter needs to have an AR-15 with a 20-round magazine. For one thing, the AR-15 IS NOT a hunting rifle. In its standard 5.56 / .223 chambering, the AR-15 is great for pest control against varmints like prairie dogs, groundhogs, foxes, and coyotes.

Traditionally it’s not much of a hunter beyond that. The 5.56 / .223 is too much for use on small game you’d want to harvest and eat, but not quite enough for medium-sized game, like deer, or bigger animals. By the way, there are very few states that allow you to legally hunt deer-sized game or larger with a 22 caliber bullet.

The AR-15 is a good “ranch rifle,” a tool traditionally used for outside the home defense or pest control. Got a large piece of property, boat, or RV to defend? The AR-15 will do the trick out to about 300 yards.

Invariably the person telling me the AR-15 is an assault rifle is someone with very little, to zero, firearms knowledge or experience. They’ve typically never had firearms training, don’t hunt, don’t target shoot, and don’t even see the value of guns for self-defense. The difference between picking up an AR-15 (or any other firearm) or dialing 911 when an armed intruder has just broken into your house quite simply can be the difference between living and dying, as thousands of Americans can tell you from first-hand experience.

Additionally, most of the folks opposed to civilian ownership of the AR-15 can’t define an assault weapon as outlined by the Federal Ban that became law in 1994 under President Bill Clinton.

Firearms safety has been drilled into my head since I was 8 years old. That’s when my father gave me my first rifle—a .22 caliber model 1904 Winchester pump.  I’ve been shooting ever since—in the Army and out. It’s second nature to me.

The Second Amendment, written in the era of muzzle-loaded muskets, does not mention or describe what arms we have the right to keep and bear. But we have an idea, based on how they were used: to protect their owners’ homes, businesses, farms, and families, and to fight the tyranny of the British crown. In the 18th century, the general populace had the same weapons that the British Red Coats and the Continental Army carried.

Today, civilians cannot own the varieties of weapons currently used by our military. I own an M-1 Garand 7.62 mm (30.06 caliber) semi-automatic rifle. This was the rifle used by the U.S. military during World War II, Korea, and even in the early years of Vietnam. It fires a much more lethal round than the AR-15’s 5.56 mm round—and no one is trying to ban it.

[image error]                                                My M-1 Garand

In any case, these days I use my M-1 only for target shooting. When I bought it several years ago, I had visions of using it as a deer rifle, but I no longer hunt. When I did hunt, it wasn’t to kill animals for sport. I learned early in life that you don’t kill any animal for sport. You only kill an animal for food. Every rabbit, squirrel, pheasant, duck, deer, or quail I ever killed, I field dressed, cleaned, and consumed.

It’s been said that the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights to protect the other nine. As Fox News contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano notes:

“The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more people would have survived the Holocaust.”

Amen, Judge.

 

 

 

 

Welcome to RRBC’S NOVEMBER “SPOTLIGHT” Author Blog Tour Featuring Author D.L. Finn

Today ForeignCorrespondent is pleased to host Rave Reviews Book Club’s “Spotlight” author D. L. Finn and a sampling of her exceptional poetry.

Finn Facts:

I’m afraid of heights.
Our house has five cats, one dog, and a goldfish.

Take a journey with D.L. Finn as she blends her love of nature with her deepest emotions. Sit with her on the forest floor observing its tranquil beauty, or stroll along the ocean’s shore admiring the vastness of its horizon. Here in these peaceful moments, you’ll be able to experience her thoughts and feelings in the light—and in the darkness. This is a thought-provoking collection of poetry that invites the reader into all the seasons of a soul.

[image error]

Excerpt from Just Her Poetry: THE EMOTIONS

Darkness and Light

BURDEN

You burden me with your words.

They are heavy and persistent.

Coming in huge waves like a tsunami,

Triggered by endless thoughts with no end in sight.

They reach out to everyone around them.

Eyes glaze, shoulders droop, and sighs weigh the air.

You don’t notice the response and keep coming at us.

One tale after another of how they did you wrong.

It’s the same story over and over.

Yet, you’re always surprised they did this—said that.

I silently reflect that is how they are.

As your words pour over me, I feel like I’m drowning.

I’m your captive audience until you finally pause.

I respond hoping you hear me this time, but you don’t.

You reject my life preserver and I can do no more.

I lovingly smile and gently detach, that is all I have to offer.

I wish you well and leave in blissful silence.

Amazon Purchase Link

[image error] Author D. L. Finn

ABOUT D.L. FINN

D.L. Finn is an independent California local who encourages everyone to embrace their inner child. She was born and raised in the foggy Bay Area, but in 1990 relocated with her husband, kids, dogs, and cats to the Sierra foothills in Nevada City, CA. She immersed herself in reading all types of books but especially loved romance, horror, and fantasy. She always treasured creating her own reality on paper. Finally, being surrounded by towering pines, oaks, and cedars, her creativity was nurtured until it bloomed. Her creations vary from children’s books, young adult fantasy, and adult paranormal romance to an autobiography with poetry. She continues on her adventures with an open invitation for her readers to join her.

SOCIAL MEDIA LINKS

Twitter handle: @dlfinnauthor
Facebook address: https://www.facebook.com/d.l.finn.writer/?
Website address: https://dlfinnauthor.com/

PURCHASE LINKS

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/D-L-Finn/e/B00ZBGJ08Q?

Barnes & Noble: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/D.+L.+Finn?  

Smashwords: https://www.smashwords.com/profil

More D.L. Finn Links:

Twitter

Facebook

Instagram

Pinterest

D.L. Finn blog

Thank you for joining ForeignCorrespondent today and Rave Reviews Book Club’s NOVEMBER “SPOTLIGHT” Author, D. L. Finn

Happy Veterans Day to All My Fellow Vets

Today is Veterans Day. Given that only 7 percent of the people of this nation has ever put on a uniform, I am not sure Americans have any idea just why Veterans Day is a holiday.

Yes, it means schools and most government offices are closed. But it means a lot more to the men and women who served this country.

Veterans Day gives Americans the opportunity to celebrate the bravery and sacrifice of all U.S. veterans. However, most Americans confuse this holiday with Memorial Day, reports the Department of Veterans Affairs.

[image error]       Pvt. Ron Yates in Uniform

Memorial Day honors service members who died in service to their country or as a result of injuries incurred during battle. Deceased veterans are also remembered on Veterans Day but the day is really set aside to thank and honor living veterans who served honorably in the military – in wartime or peacetime.

[image error]

Someone, I don’t know who, once defined a veteran this way: “A Veteran is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to “The United States of America,” for an amount of “up to, and including his or her life.”

That is Honor. It’s a concept that those who have never worn the uniform will ever fully comprehend or appreciate.

There are too many people in this country today who no longer understand what honor and sacrifice are.

Today, when athletes feel entitled to kneel during the playing of the National Anthem, or when our nation’s flag is burned or disrespected, it’s a slap in the face to veterans–at least to most of us.

Yes, it is a First Amendment right to display that contempt and to disparage those who served. The great irony is that those who do are permitted to enjoy the advantages and freedom veterans have won for them just the same.

I joined the U.S. Army in the 1960s and spent almost four years on active duty with the Army Security Agency (ASA). It was probably the best thing I ever did. It taught me about leadership, self-discipline, and working as part of a team. It taught me to be dependable and trustworthy. And it showed me the importance of serving something more important than yourself—the country that you were fortunate enough to be a citizen of.

I achieved the rank of Sergeant (E-5) and had I re-upped I was promised an immediate promotion to Staff Sergeant (E-6) along with a hefty re-enlistment bonus because I had what the Army considered a “critical MOS” (Military Occupation Specialty). I declined because I wanted to finish my college education and become a foreign correspondent. I achieved both and I credit my time in the U.S. Army with teaching me about setting goals and doing what is necessary to achieve them.

[image error] U.S. Army Security Agency Shoulder Patch

Let me end with a few facts about the nation’s veterans.

There are 18.5 million veterans living in the United States as of 2016, according to the Census Bureau. Of these, 1.6 million veterans are women.
As of last year, there were 6.8 million American veterans who served during the Vietnam era and 7.1 million who served in the Gulf War era, which spans from August 1990 through the present. (Some veterans served through both eras.) There were also about 771,000 World War II veterans and 1.6 million who served during the Korean conflict, the VA estimates.
About three-quarters (77%) of veterans in 2016 served during wartime and 23% served during peacetime.
A large proportion of the veteran population, 9.2 million, are aged 65 and older, while 1.6 million are younger than 35.
Currently, nine-in-ten veterans (91%) are men while 9% are women, according to the VA’s 2016 population model estimates. By 2045, the share of female veterans is expected to double to 18%.
Fewer members of Congress have prior military experience than in the past. As the share of Americans who are veterans has declined, so has the share of Congress members who have previously served in the military. In the current Congress, 20% of senators and 19% of representatives had prior military service, down drastically from just a few decades ago.
The American labor force has 7.2 million veterans ages 18 to 65. Of these, 6.8 million are employed. Male and female veterans’ annual median incomes are both higher than their nonveteran counterparts.

So, this is just a quick shout out to all of my fellow veterans who put on the uniform of this country and served:

HOO-RAH! HOOYAH! OOH-RAH! (Take your pick)

 

Where Have You Gone Joe DiMaggio?

During the recent World Series, won in seven games by the long-suffering Washington Nationals, the conversation, as it often does, came around to the greatest baseball players of all time.

Discussions like that are exasperating and always incomplete—especially when the discussants represent multiple generations. Evaluating baseball players from different eras is a hopeless, unremitting endeavor. So I am not going to go there.

What I will do, however, is share with you a story I wrote for the Chicago Tribune on the occasion of Joe DiMaggio’s 65th birthday, November 25, 1979. Joe died 20 years later on March 8, 1999, eight months before his 85th birthday.

Now, I realize there may be some (but only some) who may not know who “Joltin Joe” DiMaggio was. Let’s just say that along with Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Alex Rodriquez, Mickey Mantle, Derek Jeter, Yogi Berra, and Whitey Ford, Joe DiMaggio, also known as the “Yankee Clipper,” resides in the pantheon of New York Yankee greats. His career spanned 15 years from 1936 to 1951, with two years away (1943-45) in the U.S. Army Air Force during World War Two.

[image error]

During his career, he was a three-time Most Valuable Player winner, but he is best known for his 56-game hitting streak in 1941—a record that still stands today. He compiled a lifetime batting average of .325. He was twice the American League batting champion—hitting .381 in 1939 and .352 in 1940. He also led the American League in home runs with 46 in 1937 and 39 in 1948.

DiMaggio was known for his grace in center field and was considered, along with Willie Mays, one of the best center fielders of all time.

But he is also known for something else. Many considered him the symbol of an era in America that we will never see again. It was an era memorialized in Simon & Garfunkel’s classic song “Mrs. Robinson,” which was written at the height of the unpopular Vietnam War when the nation was ripping itself apart and many longed for a simpler, less divisive time.

The lyrics of that song say it all:

“Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio,

Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

What’s that you say, Mrs. Robinson.

Jolting Joe has left and gone away,

Hey, hey, hey

Hey, hey, hey.”

So when I suggested to my editors at the Tribune that I interview DiMaggio when he turned 65, I knew I would be interviewing a legend. The problem was getting the interview. Joe DiMaggio was a very private person. He didn’t like doing interviews. Luckily for me, a long-time sports writer at the Tribune knew Joe and called him for me.

“Ron’s not a sportswriter; he’s a foreign correspondent, and he was in Saigon when it fell,” the writer told DiMaggio. That bit of information intrigued DiMaggio, who had gone to Vietnam many times to support and entertain the troops.

“Okay, can he be here next Wednesday morning?” Joe asked. “I’ll give him an hour.”

As it turned out, Joe and I talked for more than three hours. It was more of a conversation than an interview, and I could tell Joe felt at ease. At one point he even invited me to join him and some of his old buddies from the San Francisco 49ers in a private room in the back of the restaurant.

“We sit around and swap lies,” DiMaggio told me. “You might get a kick out of it.”

[image error]              “Joltin Joe”

He didn’t have to ask me twice. What an experience. It’s one of the few times when I agreed to keep my notebook closed. “I don’t want the guys to get nervous,” Joe said.

DiMaggio introduced me this way: “Ron’s a war correspondent. Left on those evacuation helicopters from Saigon back in 1975. He has some great stories.”

But the “great stories” were not mine. They came from Joe and the others that November afternoon 40 years ago in a backroom of DiMaggio’s restaurant near San Francisco’s Fisherman’s Wharf.

It was one of those times that I thought to myself:  I have the greatest job in the world. I can’t believe I get paid to do it.

To read the story I wrote click on the link below:

where-have-you-gone-joe-dimaggyo-nov-25-1979-2015_09_29-18_31_25-utc

A remarkable must-read story and highly recommended by Artisan Book Reviews. 5 Big Stars!

I am pleased to share this new 5-Star review of The Lost Years of Billy Battles from Artisan Book Reviews. Here is a little about Artisan from its website:

“Artisan Book Reviews is passionate about books and the reading experience. Our goal is to provide readers with the very best hand-picked fiction books written by remarkable and talented authors who have over-the-top captivating imaginations, outstanding writing abilities and unique stories to tell.”

You can read the review and find out more about the book by clicking on this link: https://artisanbookreviews.com/2019/10/27/the-lost-years-of-billy-battles-by-ronald-e-yates or you can read only the review below:

Artisan Book Review

The Lost Years of Billy Battles by Ronald E. Yates is a remarkable, must-read story that has won some excellent notable awards (listed below).

Finding Billy Battles trilogy, The Lost Years of Billy Battles by Ronald E. Yates is a moving account of one man’s remarkable later years that include his fascinating experiences and profound life lessons.

The year is 1914 and after a chaotic past, Billy has finally settled down into a quiet and peaceful life with his second wife, The Baroness Katharina von Schreiber. Their laid-back lives are suddenly disrupted by a call from a brigadier general in the US Army whom Billy has served with before. In spite of their apprehension, Billy and Katharina leave for Mexico to serve as secret agents.

Life in Veracruz is marked with danger at every turn as Billy and Katharina navigate through the swarm of dangerous German agents, political insurgents, and pirates. Billy’s hair-raising adventures move from Mexico to the US-Mexico border where he encounters leaders of the Mexican Revolution. His escapades continue and for a long time, he disappears in the hope of keeping his family safe.

Proficiently written, The Lost Years of Billy Battles is a gripping novel that is told through detailed observations made from the perspective of the main character, Billy Battles. His petrifying adventures reveal parts of American history, especially those that occurred at the beginning of the 20th century. The work remains absorbing to the very end not settling too long on any of the events in the book.

The characters are vividly described and their unique personalities are brought out. Some have a sense of humor, others are cunning, while others stand out because of their loyalty. Billy’s keen scrutiny of the people around him offers an in-depth description of the characters. The story is also enhanced by the language that is used in the conversations which transport you back to the era in which the story is written. Amidst the palpable action in the work, an overall look into the story reveals well-established themes of friendship, family, loss, and love.

A heartfelt novel whose scenes continue to linger in the mind long after completing reading the book, The Lost Years of Billy Battles by Ronald E. Yates carefully incorporates the events of the time it is set in while telling a powerful story.

A remarkable must-read story and highly recommended by Artisan Book Reviews. 5 Big Stars!

Amazon Purchase Link: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B001KHDVZI/-/e/B00KQAYMA8/

Book Awards


Grand Prize Winner Overall Best Book of 2018, Chanticleer International Book Awards.
Award for Excellence, Official Selection, New Apple Book Award, 2019
2018 Grand Prize Winner, Goethe Historical Fiction, Chanticleer International Book Awards.
Book Excellence Award, 2019
Purchase The Lost Years of Billy Battles by Ronald E. Yates today! 

October-ween Book, Blog & Trailer Block Party

Welcome to the Rave Reviews Book Club’s October-ween Book, Blog & Trailer Block Party which will run the entire month of October. At each stop on the tour, there will be DAILY GIVEAWAY PRIZES and all you have to do to earn a chance at winning is to read the blog post or the contents of that post, and then leave a comment.  At the end of each day, there will be a winner or winners announced and at the end of the entire tour, there will also be GRAND PRIZE WINNERS!

Here’s what I’m giving away today: Four $5.00 Amazon gift cards and Kindle versions of all three books in the award-winning Finding Billy Battles Trilogy–a total of FIVE gifts.

Please take a look at a couple of trailers for the Trilogy and if you like what you see, don’t be shy–pick up one of the books, or the entire trilogy at Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B001KHDVZI/-/e/B00KQAYMA8/

Now, on to my post!

When I was writing my Finding Billy Battles Trilogy, I wanted to create realistic female characters. I didn’t want to create stereotypical women, but women who were true to the period in which my trilogy was set–which was the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I wanted the women I created to have strength without sacrificing their femininity.

In creating the women in my books, I thought about the women in my own life. There was my late mother, who always exhibited a quiet strength with a firm hand as I was growing up. Then there is my wife, who has always displayed an indispensable mixture of intelligence, common sense, and unwavering love and dedication for our family.

I wanted those qualities evident in the main female characters of my books, but I didn’t want them to be stereotyped. Somehow, I managed to create female characters who are at once strong, but supple; sagacious, but witty; independent, but accessible.

In doing so I had to discard a lot of hackneyed and clichéd ideas about women that had taken residence in my mind. Fortunately, I was able to purge those notions before they infected the creative process.

Recently, I received a thought-provoking e-mail from a woman who happens to be an editor at New York Book Editors. That e-mail did such a fine job of explaining the dos and don’ts of writing female characters that I decided to share its contents with my blog followers. I think male writers will find it fascinating and informative and I suspect women authors who stop by might find it interesting also. In any case, I would be interested in knowing what you think, so feel free to comment at the end of the post.

Please read on. I think you will be glad you did!

YOUR GUIDE TO WRITING WOMEN CHARACTERS

There’s a lot of discussions these days about “how to write a strong female character.” It’s a push back against the Disney-esque damsel in distress type character, where a woman’s biggest struggle in life was choosing the right man to marry or being preyed upon because of her beauty. Now emerges this tough as nails, self-assured, “I can change my own tires and never call me a princess” woman.

Can I tell you that both of these depictions are ridiculous?

All women are capable of being both soft and strong simultaneously. To be a woman is to exist in paradox. Yup, it’s complicated, but that’s exactly what we’re discussing in this article: how to write a woman if you’ve never been a woman and can’t think like one either. Below, we’re sharing our favorite tips and strategies for creating authentic women in your stories. You may want to bookmark this one.

 LET’S GET RID OF “STRONG WOMEN CHARACTERS”

[image error]

Whenever I hear the term “strong women character”, I start to twitch. It’s not that I don’t approve of the idea, it’s just executed incorrectly.

Far too many male authors project masculine qualities onto a female character in an attempt to show how tough she is. Here’s an example: she can get up from a one night stand and never call or look back.

The result?

You reinforce the idea that femininity is weak.

It’s one thing to push against gender stereotypes but it’s another thing to create a fantasy woman that doesn’t ring true.

You can create a strong woman but make sure she’s a woman, and not just a dude with a skirt on.

You can create a strong woman but make sure she’s a woman, and not just a dude with a skirt on. In other words, she can’t be you in drag. She’s got to have the heart and motivation of a woman in every scene she’s in.

WHAT MOTIVATES A WOMAN?

[image error]

I’m glad you asked.

Most women are motivated by two things: safety and service.

Women want to feel safe. But take note: there’s no universal definition to safety. This is how you can explore the individuality of your character.

What will make her feel safe in this scene and in the story as a whole? What is preventing her from reaching that place of safety? Perhaps it’s an outside obstacle, or maybe it’s her own weakness.

Always have your woman character reaching for safety, not just for a gun (well, only if you must).

Women also want to be of service. Women have a deep capacity to serve others. That’s not to say that women are subservient. On the contrary, women are in positions of power and influence as mothers, teachers, doctors, storytellers, et al. In fact, women can fulfill most any job that men can do.

The difference is that, for most women, the ego is not the driving force.

This isn’t a slight against men, though. It’s just that men and women see work differently.

Men consider work as a way to showcase their ability, a beating of the chest if you will. Women consider work as a service, whether it’s helping the customer, helping the company, or putting food on the table for her kids.

Now, I know I’m speaking in generalities here. So, don’t throw tomatoes at me just yet.

In your story, show how this woman serves others. Maybe she’s sacrificing her freedom for her sister. Or, in a twist, maybe she’s an unreliable narrator who pretends to be a loving, self-sacrificing wife when she’s really a manipulative sociopath. Extra points if you can name those stories.

While these two motivations don’t apply to all women, they’re a great jump-off point when you set out to write from a woman’s perspective.

WHAT IS YOUR MOTIVATION?

[image error]

Now, let’s turn the table on you. Here are a few questions you should ask yourself before writing from a woman’s perspective:

Why are you assigning a female gender to this character?
Are you just doing it to show how cool and hip and progressive you are?
Are you writing a biting, sardonic social commentary?
Do you want to create a realistic portrait of a woman?
Is there an added level of symbolism to your gender choice?

Let the answers to these questions dictate how you assign gender to all of your characters, not just the female ones.

As an aside, one of the best types of tension in literature (and life) is male versus female. Men and women will never think in the same way which makes life so very interesting and infuriating at the same time. Using men and women to foil each other can create a delightful dynamic in your story, as long as you avoid stereotypes.

Here’s a list of stereotypes:

The delicate flower. She barely talks above a whisper, she’s sad, so terribly sad, suffering from the pain of a mysterious past.
The femme fatale. She’s a sexpot, only wears skin-tight clothes, and has a gun with your name on it.
The crazy girlfriend. She’s also got a gun.
The stay at home wife. She’s wholesome, virtuous, and dependant. Her only will for living is to be a wife and a mom.
The career-driven. She’s cold-hearted and she wears designer shoes.
The most beautiful girl in the world. She’s so beautiful that she doesn’t even know it, but every other woman around her hates her.

Keep in mind that writing a female character who exhibits the polar opposite of any of these stereotypes doesn’t make your writing cool or edgy, it just makes you look like you’re trying too hard.

The best thing you can do is to avoid these stereotypes altogether. Don’t even acknowledge that they exist, and you’ll instantly improve your storytelling.

Stereotypes make a character fall flat. Stereotypes deflate what could be an interesting character.

USE A MUSE

[image error]

Base the character on someone you already know. But be careful, this one’s tricky. You definitely don’t want it to be too similar that you risk a lawsuit and the relationship if it’s unflattering.

I recommend going with the “inspired by” approach. For example, model a character after your grandmother. Based on what you know of her, how would she face this particular situation? What would she do? How would she respond? Is she feisty or subdued? Is she careful or careless?

And here’s the thing: you don’t have to use just one woman as your muse. In fact, it’s better to create a composite of more than one woman. She may behave like Jan but look like Cindy.

WILL REAL WOMEN ADMIRE THIS CHARACTER?

[image error]

Here’s your litmus test. Will your character, as she’s written, appeal to a female reader?

If your answer is, “I’m not sure”, it’s time to get your story into the hands of a woman. Ask her to pay special attention to the women in your story (you do have more than one, right?). A woman should be able to answer whether the women you’ve written seem authentic or fantasy.

HERE’S YOUR HOMEWORK

[image error]

Talk to a woman. As you’re talking to her, pretend that she’s the character you’re writing. Things to observe:

 How does she respond to you?
What’s her body language?
How does she speak? Is it fast or slow?
Does she emphasize certain words, repeat certain phrases?

This woman may not represent the entire character, but perhaps an aspect of her. “Interview” several women to create a composite character.

Interview a woman as if she is your character. Let’s take a step beyond mere observation. Explain that you’re doing character research and ask someone you know for an interview. In your interview, ask your friend or family member questions as if she were your character. For example, set up a scenario or scene from your novel and then ask questions like:

 If you were in this situation, what would you do?
What would be your thought process in this situation?
What would be your main motivation?

Of course, you don’t have to go into detail, especially if you don’t want to share your story before it’s time. Instead, create similar scenarios for the interview that you can then use to understand key motivations for your female characters.

Not sure if you can find a woman to interview? Remember, women like to help and be of service to others. Good luck, and now you can throw tomatoes if you’d like.

DO’S AND DON’TS OF WRITING WOMEN

Here’s a handy and printable list of dos and don’ts for writing realistic women characters. This is an extra resource to go along with the original article: Your Guide to Writing Women

Don’t make her “strong” like a man. She doesn’t need to exhibit traditionally masculine traits to be “strong”.

★ Do make her human. Start off with characterization and motivation first. Delve into the backstory.

Don’t make her a victim of an outside oppressor. This reinforces the idea that your woman character is deficient.

★ Do make her the hero of her own story. She doesn’t need a man, or anyone outside of herself to overcome.

Don’t forget to address her need for safety.

★ Do show how she finds that safety.

Don’t mistake a woman’s capacity for service as subservience.

★ Do show that her femininity (but not sexuality) is what makes her strong.

Don’t forget to find a muse or someone to inspire your character.

★ Do use more than one person to create a composite.

My thanks to New York Book Editors for allowing me to share this post.

And by the way, so far I have found that women who have read my Finding Billy Battles Trilogy like the female characters I have created. I am happy to have passed that litmus test!

Click on this link to the main page of the block party so you can follow each stop and party right along with us!

WELCOME TO THE #RRBC 2019 OCTOBER-WEEN BLOCK PARTY!

Finding Billy Battles a FINALIST for a 2019 TopShelf Book Award!

I was notified today that Finding Billy Battles (Book 1 of the Finding Billy Battles Trilogy)  was named a finalist for the 2019 TopShelf Magazine Book Award. Very proud to be a finalist.

“It is with great pleasure that I inform you that Finding Billy Battles (Book 1 of the Finding Billy Battles Trilogy) has been selected as a FINALIST in the 2019 TopShelf Book Awards!” Keith Katsikas, CEO & Publisher, TopShelf Magazine.

Here’s a little info about TopShelf Magazine from its website:

“Over the years TopShelf Magazine has built a powerful brand that booksellers, librarians, authors, and book-lovers everywhere trust. TopShelf is a literary journal geared toward assisting the ever-evolving needs of our readers, packed with marketing advice, trade reviews, exclusive author interviews, book spotlights, indie discoveries, and more. Our editors vet each book we spotlight, so readers know that the books they find in TopShelf Magazine are worth their time and investment. We could not be prouder of the response we’ve received from booksellers, readers, and the world’s most acclaimed authors. Spend a moment on our testimonials page and you’ll see what we mean.

“We use the powerful brand we’ve built to raise awareness of the best authors and books––not only to readers but to our growing list of booksellers and librarians from around the globe. Every single book that is promoted in TopShelf Magazine and on our website is likely to be seen by booksellers, librarians, authors, agents, publicists, reviewers, readers, and more––thousands of some of the most influential, most important people who could ever get ahold of your book. Booksellers and many big names in the literary industry, pay attention to the results of this contest. The winners are promoted heavily to booksellers, librarians, and readers on a scale you likely have never seen before.

[image error]

“TopShelf Magazine is available to anyone around the world via our affordable digital magazine found here, free printed copies are available to booksellers and libraries upon request, and print subscriptions are now available to US residents. Our website receives over 50,000 visitors and 250,000 page-views a month. Moreover, we have a growing team of social media partners who promote our tweets and posts daily. With this level of traffic, combined with a social media reach of over 4,000,000, TopShelf Magazine is a tremendous mouthpiece for authors and advertisers.”

Here is a link to the book on Amazon in case you want to check it out. And if you do, check out Books 2 & 3 also. You can purchase all three award-winning Kindle editions of the Finding Billy Battles Trilogy for the special low price of $10.97!

Journalism’s Dangerous Shift from Impartiality to Advocacy

Those of us who have been in the news business for more than a few years (for me it’s more than 30 years) have learned a hard truth in the past decade or so: There has been a palpable shifting of the lines between what we learned journalism ideally should be and what it has become.

Coming as I did as a neophyte into the cavernous newsroom of the Chicago Tribune back in 1969 right out of college, I had editors who made sure that I didn’t stray from accurate, evenhanded, and unbiased reporting into opinion and rumor. When I did, I heard about it from some crabby City Editor.

An even worse sin at the Tribune was the sin of omission. That occurred if you took it upon yourself NOT to report something because doing so might not coincide with YOUR interpretation of the event or your political predilection.

“The only thing worse than writing a story filled with mistakes and lies is to ignore and bury a story because it violates your viewpoints,” a Tribune editor once chided a fellow reporter. “That’s like a doctor withholding life-saving medicine from a patient he may not like.”

That happens all too often in today’s news media. For example, back in March, Attorney General Barr told President Trump in the Oval Office that his national emergency declaration was clearly lawful, and exactly what Congress intended when it passed the National Emergencies Act,  which gave presidents broad discretionary authority to identify and respond to emergent circumstances like the humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border.

What? You didn’t see it on TV or read it in your newspaper? That’s because the big three networks—ABC, NBC, and CBS—buried the story, preventing millions of viewers from learning about the Justice Department’s legal advice to the President. So did all cable networks, except for FOX.

[image error]

They preferred to push the anti-Trump narrative that the emergency declaration was somehow unlawful or beyond the parameters of the National Emergency Act—which it clearly was not.

Then there is the Joe Biden/Hunter Biden scandal, which the mainstream media has decided doesn’t warrant any reporting beyond one or two cursory and superficial stories that a couple of news outlets did three years ago. Never mind that new evidence has surfaced and continues to surface every day.

But hey, today’s big thing is impeaching the president and overturning an election in which 61 million Americans put Donald Trump in the White House.

Have any of the mainstream media reported on how much and how often House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has lied about everything from having “proof” of Trump’s collusion with Russia to the President’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky?

[image error] Adam Schiff: 4 Pinocchios from Washington Post for lying

So far, only the Washington Post has done so—giving Schiff the maximum of four Pinocchios for his fabrications and deceits concerning the “dreadful” phone call. Kudos to the Post!

When I was learning how to be a reporter we were exhorted to strive for objectivity in our reporting. Of course, we knew there was no such thing as a purely objective reporter. All of us have biases and are more than likely predisposed to have prejudices one way or the other in dealing with events, sources, issues, etc.

What dismays me today is that with the enormous influence of social media and cable news shows that purport to report stories unbiasedly, the viewing public has trouble discerning between news and opinion. The strict separation between news and opinion is simply vanishing. News anchors today feel it is their duty and prerogative to sprinkle their opinions throughout every story—especially those dealing with President Trump.

Legendary newsmen that I grew up with, such as Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, Harry Reasoner, etc. worked assiduously to keep their sentiments out of news stories. Why? Because doing otherwise would have undermined their credibility as professional journalists. And once journalists lose their credibility, they have lost everything. When they did opine, they did so by alerting their viewers that they were about to do so.

I have heard journalists today insist that stories need interpretation and that reporters need to adapt to the “realities of 21st Century journalism.”

I beg to differ. The realities of 21st Century journalism should mirror those of 20th Century journalism. Superior journalism needs to be a watchdog on government and elected officials, and it needs to be as objective and impartial as possible.

[image error]

There is nothing wrong with explanatory journalism, but there should be no doubt where news ends and opinion begins.

Too many reporters today believe that advocating for some cause or viewpoint is equivalent to interpreting the news. It is not. Journalists are not advocates and they should never fall into that trap.

One of the first rules I learned after joining the Chicago Tribune was that I was not allowed to engage in any kind of local politics–including joining the local school board. While reporters were allowed to belong to political parties, we were not allowed to work for any candidates or to express any open support for them. We were supposed to be independent observers, otherwise, how could our reporting be trusted?

We weren’t even allowed to go on television to express our opinions about a story or issue if we were reporting or covering it.

Here’s a question for you. Are MSNBC talking heads like Rachel Madow, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Kirsten Powers, and Chris Matthews journalists? No, they are not. Perhaps they were at one time, but they have abandoned whatever journalistic principles they may have had to become provocative pundits or commentators. Yet we see them anchoring shows that purport to be “news” shows.

This is prima facie fraud. But they couldn’t care less about journalistic credibility because they simply are NOT journalists. They don’t pretend to be impartial. Many are committed left-wingers and they make no apologies about it. They are paid to share their left-wing biases with their like-minded audiences, in much the same way that Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, or Laura Ingraham are paid by the Fox Network to share their conservative opinions with their audiences.

[image error]

I have never heard Hannity, Carlson, or Ingraham claim to be impartial journalists. They are paid commentators, not reporters. One watches those shows knowing that the emphasis is not on impartiality, but on opinion.

Yet, Fox News gets slammed again and again for being biased in its news coverage. Frankly, I think Fox’s news coverage is as fair as any of the other cable networks (certainly MSNBC’s or CNN’s).

The challenge for the viewing public is to learn to discern between opinion programs and news shows. That goes for all cable and broadcast networks.

Unfortunately, with the blurring of the lines between news and opinion in the reporting process, that continues to be a near impossible task for most viewers and readers.

On the other hand, it may be that the viewing and reading public really doesn’t care if stories are slanted and biased as long as they are slanted and biased in the direction they lean, left or right.

I hope that is not the case. If professional journalists and news organizations cannot or will not provide unbiased news that helps a citizenry to make informed choices and decisions then I fear our democracy is in grave danger.

So You Want to Travel Back in Time?

This is a post I shared a couple of years ago. It deals with how much different life was in the distant and not so distant past–something that anybody who writes historical fiction needs constantly to be aware of. Enjoy!

When I taught journalism classes at the University of Illinois, I was always saddened at how little knowledge of history my students had.

I didn’t blame my students so much as I blamed their K-12 schools for sending them into the world with little if any appreciation for the past and how it shaped today’s world.

I was amazed at how many students assumed that the world they lived in today was always this way. Most thought the modern conveniences we take for granted today were always there–just made from different materials or designed differently.

When I revealed to students how different life was in 1905, most were stunned.

I pointed out that in 1905 average life expectancy in the U.S. was 47 years; that only 14 percent of the homes in the U.S. had a bathtub; that only 8 percent of the households had a telephone; that 95 percent of all births took place at home; that 20 percent of adults couldn’t read or write; that only 6 percent of all Americans  graduated from high school; that marijuana, heroin, and morphine were all available over the counter at the local corner drugstores; and that there were only 230 reported murders in the entire U.S. you could hear a pin drop.

[image error]                                          Lunchtime on a Kansas Farm 1905

Those facts alone spurred some students to learn more about life in the past.

For me, an author of action/adventure and historical novels, visiting the past is not an option. It is a requirement. How can you write a book set in the 19th or 18th Centuries without understanding what life was like for the characters you create? The answer: you can’t.

One semester, as I was teaching my class, I came across some fascinating facts about life in England during the 16th Century. I am sure it mirrored life in 1500’s France, Germany, Italy, and other European countries.

I don’t know who the author is, or when it was written, or even how accurate it is, but when I shared it with my students, eyes widened, and jaws dropped. Here it is, and to the person who wrote this, my everlasting thanks.

 

THE 1500’s IN ENGLAND

 

The next time you are washing your hands and complain because the water temperature isn’t just how you like it, think about how things used to be.

Here are some facts about the 1500s, otherwise known as the middle ages:

Most people got married in June because they took their yearly bath in May and still smelled pretty good by June. However, they were starting to smell, so brides carried a bouquet to hide the body odor. Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water.

The man of the house had the privilege of the clear, clean water, then all the sons and men, then the women and finally the children — last of all the babies. By then, the water was so dirty you could lose someone in it–hence the saying, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

[image error]                                               An English village ca. 1500

Houses had thatched roofs — thick straw, piled high, with no wood underneath. It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the dogs, cats and other small animals (mice rats, and bugs) lived in the roof. When it rained, it became slippery, and sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof–hence the saying, “It’s raining cats and dogs.”

There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. That posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings could mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. That’s how canopy beds came into existence.

The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt, hence the saying, “dirt poor.” The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh on the floor to help keep their footing. As the winter wore on, they kept adding more thresh until when you opened the door, it would all start slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entryway–hence, a “thresh-hold.”

People cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that always hung over the fire.  Every day they lit the fire and added things to the pot. They ate mostly vegetables and did not get much meat. They would eat the stew for dinner, leaving leftovers in the pot to get cold overnight and then start over the next day. Sometimes the stew had food in it that had been there for quite a while–hence the rhyme, “peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot nine days old.”

Sometimes they could obtain pork, which made them feel quite special. When visitors came over, they would hang up their bacon to show off. It was a sign of wealth that a man “could bring home the bacon.” They would cut off a little to share with guests and would all sit around and “chew the fat.”

Those with money had plates made of pewter. Food with a high acid content caused some of the lead to leach onto the food, causing lead poisoning and death. This happened most often with tomatoes, so for the next 400 years or so, tomatoes were considered poisonous.

 Most people did not have pewter plates, but had trenchers, a piece of wood with the middle scooped out like a bowl. Often trenchers were made from stale paisan bread, which was so old and hard that they could use them for quite some time. Trenchers were never washed and a lot of times worms and mold got into the wood and old bread. After eating off wormy moldy trenchers, one would get “trench mouth.”

 Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom of the loaf, the family got the middle, and guests got the top, or “upper crust.”

 Lead cups were used to drink ale or whiskey. The combination would sometimes knock them out for a couple of days. Someone walking along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for burial. They were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days, and the family would gather around and eat  and drink and wait and see if they would wake up-hence the custom of holding a “wake.”

[image error]                                       Market Day English Town 1500’s

England is old and small, and they started running out of places to bury people. So they would dig up coffins and would take the bones to a “bone-house” and reuse the grave. When reopening these coffins, one out of every 25 coffins were found to have scratch marks on the inside, and they realized they had been burying people alive.

 Somebody came up with the idea of tying a string around the wrist of the corpse. They then ran the line through the coffin up through the ground and tied it to a bell. Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night (the “graveyard shift”) to listen for the bell. Thus, someone freshly buried could be “saved by the bell.”

As I mentioned earlier, I have no idea how accurate any of this is, but it seems to make sense to me. (Though I always thought “saved by the bell” was a boxing term in which a fighter who had been knocked to the canvas was not counted “out” if the bell ending the round sounded first).

But what do I know? I still believe in King Arthur, Sir Lancelot, Queen Guinevere, and the quest for the Holy Grail–not to mention fire breathing dragons.

A confession:  I only believe in fire breathing dragons after too much Kaw River Coffin Varnish, otherwise known as grandpappy’s corn squeezin’.