Six tips for writing professional tweets

(This post originally appeared in "Net Worked," the digital blog of the Society of Professional Journalists.)

It’s amazing the things that we see people tweet about. Personal beliefs. Private conversations. Elicit behavior. Groundless criticism. Uneducated perspective.

Yes, I’m talking about journalists, too.

Sure, some genuine news seeps through to the Twitterverse — the brilliant coverage by Andy Carvin of last year’s “Arab Spring” foremost among the examples. (Remarkably, a year later, his work still sets the standard.) Otherwise, what remains on that social network largely amounts to boorishness and self-aggrandizement, impugning and assuming, snobbery and effrontery.

When I came up through the journalism ranks, any sort of spotlight-hogging was frowned upon as ethically dubious, if not forbidden by company policy. Today, a persistent and effusive social media presence is considered essential to one’s employment, if for no other reason than to continually trumpet a media “brand.”

This deep bow to branding waxes ominous, thanks largely to such popular social media measuring sticks as Klout assigning a manufactured importance to digital socialization — an importance weighted in favor of quantity instead of quality. If we agree to hold up these sticks as accurate, then news reporting via social media is bound not to be.

Why? Because there’s a certain assurance news consumers get from a journalist’s professional detachment, and we see that assurance petering out now as news providers strive to be heard above the loud partisan polemic drowning rational thought — a polemic they help stir up.

The solution, short of wiping social media off the map, is greater attentiveness toward distinguishing personal from professional content. Though there are claims that a personal touch demystifies media and as a result makes news more consumable, personalization also blurs the line separating judgment from fact. And when journalists apply it, they put their profession at risk of being marginalized by “citizen” journalists who insist they’re merely following the example.

So, then, make that example an admirable one:

Separate personal from professional tweets — If this means creating separate Twitter accounts, so be it. And try not to use the company logo or any derivative as a personal avatar.

Exercise care with criticism — Do you love “50 Shades of Grey”? Do you hate the movie remake of “Spider-Man”? That’s fine, but keep those opinions off all professional social media accounts, unless it has a discernible job relevance. Otherwise, inserting opinion only waters down what little objectivity a journalist can muster.

Keep company matters inside the company — There may be discord between management and staff, or personnel matters that prove irksome, but venting discontent via veiled insult on social media not only undermines others’ faith in you, it also could prove actionable in a court of law. In the same vein, honesty regarding one’s own reporting or editing errors may evoke pangs of guilt and frustration, but it  reinforces credibility and respectability as well.

Rein in the urge to be defensive — By its nature, journalism invites criticism, warranted or not. Certainly, some of that criticism can be mean-spirited and vindictive, instead of constructive. Avoid driving a conversation further down the same dark road. As humorist Mark Twain once said, “Never argue with stupid people; they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

Resist posting vacation and food photos — It’s always good to get away from it all when possible; it’s bad to drag readers and viewers along. That beach picture with Diamond Head in the background, while pretty, smacks of braggadocio, and may even suggest to others a laxity at work — especially if the picture puts you in one place while the calendar says you should be somewhere else. Food photos, on the other hand, pose a different problem, one rooted in esthetics. Put simply, food never looks as good in social media as it does in person.

Avoid posting sales pitches — Ensure personal brand integrity by not promoting other brands in tweets through sales pitches or links to special deals. Leave that up to the sales people who are supposed to market those products.

'Pay for praise' undermines journalism's credibility

See the full gallery on Posterous

The crisp suits and tuxedos are put away, the gowns and evening dresses are hung as well. America’s journalists have packed their finest threads for another year, and the shining plaques and embossed certificates that prompted such fashion displays are already up on shelves, bookcases and desktops across this wide nation.

This is because journalism’s two-month season of giving itself awards recently ended; everything from Pulitzers to proclamations went out in rapid order, ranging in purpose from national recognition to just a pat on the back. It’s an unabashedly narcissistic season in which we journalists look back at our work to see what we did best, or did right, this past year, and try to justify among ourselves the value and importance of it.

Absent unimpeachable proof from our readers and viewers that they think we’re doing the right thing, it’s the optimum means of self-gratification available to us.

And yet, the implied veracity has come into question with me. Thanks to a particular incident, I wonder, especially now, how many of those honors truly recognized laudable effort — or whether they are the result of cash guarantees.

I didn’t use to wonder. As president of the St. Louis Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, part of my responsibility has been to assist other SPJ chapters in evaluating submissions for their annual awards, so they could avoid the appearance of currying favors from friends and colleagues. To juxtapose even more space between thought and deed, SPJ urges contest administrators to seek that assistance well away from their chapters’ membership areas. The closest chapter I assisted this year was a six-hour drive from me.

This year, my third consecutive as a judge, I volunteered to assess submissions for five different competitions — one of them national and four regional, or two more competitions than last year. Looking back, I’m sure though that one of those chapters won’t ring up my number again.

Before the explanation, a little background: Besides recognizing excellent work and stroking egos, awards contests can rake in a lot of money. Organizers often attach entry fees per submission, ranging from a few bucks to tens of dollars, ostensibly to offset administrative costs but also to generate operating funds for the chapters. For example, imagine a particular award category attracts two dozen entries. Charging $10 per entry nets a fast $240 in pocket for a chapter before even the invitations go out.

Multiply that by, say, 80 categories spread across the spectrum of print, televised and digital media, and the chapter is looking at potentially thousands of dollars to not only spend on impressive looking plaques and certificates to hand out at tony venues where food is served and fashions much nicer than office wear is de rigueur, but also bank a few bucks for other special events, scholarships and professional training. 

This kind of thing is not unique to journalism; awards are handed out in much the same way across the scope of professions, each with its own rationale for assessing fees. One would think though that journalism, prominent among them, eschews guarantees of praise to go with those payments, if only to ensure the notion that its award-giving smacks of the same objectivity attempted in its news coverage.

Think again. As my award-judging obligation wound down I received an email from a contest organizer who was dismayed with my selections — not so much regarding my overall judgment as the lack thereof for a handful of categories. In other words, where I judged the entries to be wholly substandard, I left the category blank, ensuring no award.

“Perhaps I was unclear in my instructions, and for that I apologize,” the contest organizer wrote to me about a week after I made my choices. “These entrants paid the submission fee. We should show that they are getting something for their fee.”

Absent that, he continued, they may decide to not make submissions for future contests. And we need the money; the awards are central to our fundraising efforts.

I tried to shore up my position by reminding him that the five reporting categories I left blank had just one or two entries total for three potential awards — first, second, third and honorable mention — and that the entries themselves were laughably far off the award-winning mark: unenterprising, perhaps culled from batch-distributed public relations announcements and devoid of sourcing that might prove to me the reporters attempted to verify a shred of their PR content. In a couple instances, what struck me was that the florid wording of the original PR release had oozed through into the story.

Granted, I was not certain of the story origins. But after 30 years in this business, much of it spent coaxing good writing from bad, I have come to recognize patterns of writing, and that recognition is fairly bankable.

The awards organizer, perhaps immune to my argument, graciously deflected my concern.

“We appreciate your time and effort,” he wrote back. “Please send back the entries you judged for the categories in question, and we’ll have the awards committee review your decisions.”

I did as advised, and a few weeks later I checked the contest website for the results. Sure enough, there were the categories I had judged and left blank newly filled with winners in each and with carefully worded platitudes attached. The circle of this particular contest remained unbroken, no matter my noble intent.

Maybe I’m may be part of a dwindling contingent that believes awards and honors should recognize true exceptionality. The Pulitzer committee, at least, is a member of this group, charging $50 per Pulitzer-prize entry while not at the same time issuing awards like a supermarket coupon dispenser. That entry fee opens the door to contestants; it doesn’t ensure them one of the silver-and-gold medallions.

When any of us promise awards for the price of entry, no matter the profession, we cheapen not just the award but also the work it was intended to honor. The organizers for all journalism awards need to keep that in mind, lest their efforts to distribute praise and bolster funds also chip away the foundation of journalism’s credibility.

Nuance matters in shooting video

(This post first appeared in the May/June 2012 issue of Quill, the magazine of the Society of Professional Journalists.)

In the mad rush by journalists to become multilingual in the language of multimedia, a few finer points can get cropped out of the picture. Key among them: nuance. Lacking this, attempts at quality journalism will seem a little less so, to journalists as well as their audiences.

For example, in print journalism, it’s crucial to know that most words have many definitions, intended and implied, and the context either way can make the difference between enlightening readers or confusing them. Radio talent understands this, too, and is adept at conveying additional meaning through pronunciation and delivery.

Meanwhile, videography incorporates both sets of nuances and brings another that’s purely visual in scope, something many seasoned journalists are wrestling with as video news-gathering rises in prominence and importance. These nuances do not come bundled with the technology, though; they are, like verbal and audio knowledge, products of wisdom acquired over years of practice and error.

Thus, while it’s one thing to know how to use video technology, it’s quite another to use it properly and effectively, to bring out a news story’s layers and colors. So, be sure to make room for nuance in video, the better to keep an audience engaged.

Among the nuances that deserve attention:

Humanity: The more complex a story, the harder it will be to explain all its facets. That’s why it’s more effective to narrow the story’s focus onto one person, one character, who embodies the issue. Pull the audience into that character’s life and explain how this one person fits inside the larger issue. People relate to people better than broad concepts or ideas. Show how the central concept or idea has affected this single character.

Personality: If you’re the one in front of the camera, do not fear the lens, as the audience will see that fear. Look directly into the lens, taking care not to read from cues or prompts. This way, the delivery looks natural, the conversation seems personal, and nothing appears scripted. Audiences also can sense that there’s a script nearby and will be just as distracted in listening to it as you are reading from it.

Energy: Don’t just talk to the lens; show energy and commitment while delivering the message. Bring all that energy to the camera if you want the audience to bring all of its attention in return. When the subject material makes this difficult, it may be easier to also attach a purpose to the delivery, such as getting the audience to laugh or cry or to have it ponder a particular point.

Brevity: Audiences give videographers just seconds to make their case, then only seconds more to explain why audience members should even care. So don’t waste the audience’s time or patience. Make the video’s main point in one shot, preferably unedited, because viewers tend to trust clear, straightforward messages to ones that are filled with edits. After that, keep the video’s maximum running time at three to five minutes. Not only does this respect the audience’s time, it reduces the potential for errors in the final product.

Clarity: Speaking of the final product, take care to include only the essential elements in any video clip. The best way to do this is edit out the beginning and end of the clip, where you’re stepping in and out of the frame. There’s a theory that leaving in the rough edges around a clip makes the end result seem more natural and inviting. But news trumps “natural” when it comes to credibility. Stick to using clean clips and resist the urge to “edit in” more than what the clip is saying. 

 

Social media and the news

This spring, I gave a presentation at the Society of Professional Journalists' Region 7 Conference, held this year at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa, where I discussed briefly how best to implement social media in journalism. There is much more depth to the discussion than this, so consider the presentation a primer, not a guide.

<div style='width:425px;text-align:left'></div>

As social media use in journalism continues to grow, the scope of this discussion and the best practices that go along with it will broaden, to the point where one day may become the central theme of journalism. That's why there's no better time like the present to start the discussion in earnest, and start it with presentations like this one. I hope it helped you in some way, and I encourage input regardless.

Bringing far-flung freelancers together

See the full gallery on Posterous

(This post first appeared in The Independent Journalist, a blog for freelancers by the Society of Professional Journalists.)

As the market for freelance journalism grows, so too has interest in the evolving tools for that job.

That interest is acute where collaborative journalism is concerned, because simply pitching PDFs of Word documents back and forth via email tends to be a clunky way of doing business in this demanding age of digital interactivity. Now, no matter the distance or purpose, teams of people with shared goals all want to work together as if sitting in the same room.

A relatively new website called Widbook tries to provide that goal-oriented environment and foster a social network to supplement it. Widbook is a writing and editing space that lets people alone or in groups craft book-length projects and shorter stories; insert resources such as photos, videos and animations; and add to or augment contributions by other writers.

Widbook also invites writers and readers to share and tweak favorite developing works, and create libraries of published works whether self-written or from other authors.

Early reports on Widbook, still in beta, call it a “YouTube for books” because of its heavy emphasis on interactivity. The central theme and interface are better suited for collaboration on projects. Writers who prefer to work alone can use Widbook as well, but they’ll miss out on many of its features.

And Widbook is free of charge to register for and use — surely the most attractive feature to freelance writers and hopeful novelists working with meager budgets. The only things that first-time visitors to Widbook need to get started is to create a user name and password. Options include creating a personal profile, linking with Facebook, and selecting favorite literary genres from which to build a library. Members also can send messages and “follow” one another through the site.

Because it’s in beta, Widbook has limitations and quirks. For one thing, it’s not possible to export a finished project to another platform, though that’s expected to come later as the site matures, and it’s not obvious to early users how the social media aspect will supplement the collaboration tools. The interface is also a tad balky with projects running longer than a few chapters.

Still, for collaborative writers and editors, Widbook presents an intriguing new way for collaborative journalists to exchange ideas and bring far-flung talent together in the same room.

A bottom-line tragedy

I lost six friends yesterday. A disaster eliminated them.

Not a natural disaster, mind you, but the kind caused by an accountant’s keystrokes.

Sadder still, someone who didn’t know these people, and maybe didn’t even care to know them, will profit from those keystrokes in the short run.

Yesterday, six news staffers at my workplace — five editors and a photographer — were expunged from the payroll of Lee Enterprises’s largest property and St. Louis’s principal news source. Out the door with these six and the few belongings they had also went about 50 years’ worth of institutional memory and irreplaceable expertise, to say nothing of the collegiality and professionalism they brought to work every day.

They were expunged about a month after Lee Enterprises deferred paying into pension plans for 2011 while handing the CEO and CFO performance bonuses totaling at least $1 million, and about two weeks after the company tamped down rumors that layoffs were pending. 

Discussion abounds over whether these matters led directly to what happened Tuesday. At the least, the timing is atrocious. Regardless, the events have combined to frighten those employees remaining. The ax has fallen close enough, repeatedly now over the past few years, for the remainder to feel a breeze from it. 

Among the people still filling chairs Tuesday, the mood was quiet, somber. Funereal maybe fits better. But nobody slaked their duties or relented during the inevitable march toward deadline. Our readers still needed their news Wednesday morning, no matter who was left to gather and present it.

And journalists — the really good ones I’ve known, anyway; certainly, the six who were shown the door Tuesday — tend not to soften while the world around them hardens. Public service comes first; that’s what being a journalist is all about. It’s a difficult, demanding profession that satisfies maybe one out of every two customers, and leaves the one customer often miffed. This is a hazard of striving to serve everyone equally, without fear or favor.

Because they routinely and willingly face that hazard, journalists also tend to be resilient. I have little doubt that the six former colleagues of mine will find new courses in life, ones that may afford them more prosperity and happiness. The thing is, nobody I know in journalism — and I’ve had ink-stained fingers almost 30 years now — pursued it for money or fame; so many other professions better satisfy those needs. They instead felt called to it, drawn to it, as if journalism sated them in some deep-seated way far more than just a career could.

More keep coming, fortunately, as the fine, aspiring journalists I have worked with at local universities attest. I wonder now, however, how many of these motivated, energetic students will be able to look back through 30 years of news gathering and public service, or even 30 months, when the institutions that were designed to support them in their pursuit crumble before anyone just jumping aboard gains adequate footing.

Yes, I realize journalism must adapt with the times and technology. I’ve heard the sermons, both weak and strong, and believe me when I say I’m among the converted. Perhaps we are indeed entering a “golden age” of journalism, with mobile technology and widespread electronic information access, that the static institutions associated with “mainstream” media had to be moved or removed to reach.

Still, something worsens when a medium plunders itself, and the newspaper subscriber from Florissant, Mo., who rang me up at work one evening a few weeks ago illustrated it. She called a random newspaper department number, she said, hoping to bypass the general voicemail that intercepts and, yes, discourages many outside callers, and got me on the line to complain about an article in print that glared with a grammatical error.

The error was in a part of the newspaper unrelated to mine. Nevertheless, now that she had me on the phone, she wanted to vent to somebody — anybody.

“This is shameful,” she said. “This is awful. How can you sleep knowing you put out a product like this? And you know, it just keeps getting worse.”

I assured her that, no, sometimes I don’t sleep.

“Ma’am,” I said. “I agree, it shouldn’t have happened, and I apologize. It certainly wasn’t the result of laziness or anything like that.”

“What was it then?”

“Well, I’m not sure, but ...” and I whisked her through a summary of the layoffs and cutbacks going on at the newspaper, explaining that these were happening while content management had expanded to include Web, mobile and other platforms, and social media.

“Basically, we’re doing much more with fewer people,” I concluded.

There was a silence of a few seconds at the other end, followed by, “Oh. Well, now I understand. Nobody’s ever taken the time to explain it to me. Thank you.”

She hung up sounding apologetic, but I doubt my explanation will salve her for long. 

The six people who were laid off Tuesday were among the vanguard of a watch attending to details that this reader, and many others also concerned with accuracy, consider crucial. They understand that credibility lies not just in the act of journalism, but also in the pursuit of perfection while performing it. Yes, errors do occur; however, the overall goal of getting details down properly and precisely should not be minimized, even as journalism leaps off the page and into the “cloud” — even as executives sift for ways to cut costs en route to that cloud.

Implying to our readers and our newest journalists that precision is negligible serves neither constituency, and in the end won’t serve the bottom line, either.

The color of mercy

David rests after his fall on the Tucker Boulevard bridge in downtown St. Louis.

 

I met him when he was face down on the sidewalk. It was Sunday, around noon. His head was in his hands; a thin line of blood trailed over two of his fingers. Sweat glinted atop his balding head.

Beside him, a scuffed Pullman suitcase lay on its side. Tied to the handle was a portable radio. When I arrived, the radio’s tinny speakers were conveying the announcer’s warning about that afternoon’s unseasonable heat.

“Sir,” I called down to him. “You OK? You need help?”

He raised his head to look at me. Beneath his right eye was a fresh, leaking abrasion the size of a quarter. Another abrasion half that size and leaking as well was gouged into the space between his nose and lip. A third, less worrisome scrape was visible on the left side of his forehead at the hairline. David’s eyes were glazed and his face runny with perspiration.

“I’m fine, I’m fine,” he said clearly. “I’m just resting a moment.” Then he put his head back down.

Where he lay was at the approach to one of two walkways running along either side of the Tucker Boulevard bridge, between Spruce Street and Choteau Avenue. The walkways are bracketed by an aluminum railing on one side and a low concrete wall on the other, the latter serving as barricade between pedestrians and vehicles. Each walkway is narrow enough that people going opposite directions must twist their torsos slightly to keep from brushing shoulders.

He was sprawled at one angle, the suitcase at another. There was no way to pass without stepping over him, yet the barrier was high enough that car traffic would not notice.

“Are you sure you’re OK?” I shouted. “You don’t look it.”

He raised his head. “No, no, I’m good, I’m good. I just gotta catch my breath a little here, thought I’d just lay a minute.”

“You sure this is the best place to do it?”

He looked around and over his shoulder. A long, sticky strand of blood and sweat clung like a spider’s web between his cheek and wrist.

“Yeah, I guess you’re right,” he said, after a few seconds sizing up his situation. “I’ll just try sitting up over here.”

He rolled over slowly and rose up onto his knees, then turned and plopped down into a sitting position with his back against the concrete divider. His outer garments consisted of a dirty yellow University of Missouri hoodie and faded brown pants tucked into the tops of lace-up boots, the toes of which were rubbed white from wear. He said later that under those clothes were three other layers. The forecast that Sunday called for clear skies and 90-degree temperatures.

Sitting atop the divider near David’s head was a 32-ounce soda cup and a folded jacket. He reached into a pocket of his hoodie and withdrew a blue rag. He began wiping his face. That’s when he told me his name: David.

“I was sitting there, resting,” David said, pointing to where the jacket was. “I had just taken my jacket off and I guess I just went out and fell over.”

After two vigorous passes with the rag, he stopped at looked up at me.

“Do I have something on my face? Under my eye here?”

“Yes,” I said. “Looks like you scraped it when you went down.”

He wiped the spot again and looked at the rag. “Anyplace else?”

“Yes. Under your nose.”

He wiped, looked and nodded.

“Yeah, I feel it. I feel something, anyway. But it doesn’t look like it’s bleeding much.”

Near my feet was the hand-sized puddle of sweat and blood he had just come up out of.

“It could be worse,” David went on. “I guess I fell and hit that railing there and went down. Don’t remember it, though. Just remember taking my coat off and sitting there a moment, then I woke up and I was on the ground.”

“Do you feel like you’re hurt anywhere else?”

“Nah, this is it,” he said, wiping his face again.

“Still, I’m going to call for some help,” I said.

The nice weather had lured me out for a walk. I was four blocks from home, having come up the opposite end of the Tucker Boulevard bridge. Along the way, four people passed me — three men and a woman — all smiling, all giving cheerful greetings as they went by. When I reached David, blocking the sidewalk as he was, it became clear these smiling, cheerful people had stepped over him, ignored him.

As David sat, I dialed 9-1-1. The dispatcher picked up after one ring. She asked where I was and the condition of the injured man and I told her — about a block and a half from the main headquarters of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department and a firehouse. I figured help was maybe five minutes away.

Then the dispatcher asked what I considered an unusual question.

“Is the person white or African American?”

“African American,” I answered.

There was a pause, then. “OK, we’ll get someone there right away.”

When I hung up, David had reached for the soda cup and started drinking from it. He took small sips, then stared off through the bridge railing.

“This is my problem here,” he said. “I shoulda gotten water, not this stuff. I know better, too.”

Streams of cars rushed by as the lights at Spruce and Choteau turned red to green and back again. David talked in a low voice, so hearing him over the traffic was difficult. But in the quiet between green lights, he volunteered a few things about himself.

David came from North St. Louis and began his working life, making machine parts across the river in Illinois, right after leaving school. He milled gears for decades, retiring three years ago and moving into an apartment off Ninth Street downtown.

Then, he said, he got bored. With no wife or family, his days amounted to just sitting around, and his faith assured him that was no way to live. He needed a challenge to stay active and alert. He was healthy, just past 60, and motivated.

“So, I gave it up,” he said.

“Gave what up?”

“The apartment,” he said. “I gave it up. Figured there was someone else who needed it. This,” and he pointed to the sidewalk, “livin’ on the streets, was something I always wanted to try, an experiment, so I figured I’d do it.”

That was two years ago. And how’s the “experiment” going?

“Ah, it’s not so bad,” he said, shrugging. “Could be worse. I’ve seen others worse off.”

Now, David lives out of the big suitcase. It’s filled with clothes, books, odds and ends he kept from the apartment, which he says he doesn’t want back. He bought the radio from a thrift shop a week earlier.

“Keeps me company,” he said.

Money dribbles in from retirement checks that go to a post office box downtown. He’s careful with his funds, rarely splurges, but this time decided to buy a soda from a gas station just down the street from where he fell.

“Shouldn’t a done that. I’m fasting, you know,” he said, and drained his cup. “Fast every week from Friday to Sunday. Better to just have water. Saw this and, well ... you know.”

David was feeling faint before reaching the Tucker Boulevard bridge. He was en route to St. Vincent DePaul Parish, where they serve meals to the homeless. He breaks his fast each Sunday there, tries to be in line when the doors open at 10 a.m. so it’s easier to get a seat.

Now he’s worried. He takes pride in his health and said he had never fainted before, four layers of clothes or no. I asked why so many layers on such a hot day.

“You stay clean that way. Can’t get a bath all the time, but you gotta stay clean to stay healthy,” he explained. “The more you wear, the more it protects you. I don’t always know where I’m going to be sleeping.”

I nodded and looked at the clock on my phone. Fifteen minutes had passed since I called 9-1-1. I called again. I tweeted again.

“Look, we’re busy,” a different dispatcher explained. “We’ll get there as soon as we can.”

I hung up, looked at David and shrugged. “They say they they’re busy.”

“Well, I ain’t going anywhere. I need to rest.” He settled in against the barrier and turned his head to stare up the slope of the bridge. It’s a long incline, and he was still several blocks away from St. Vincent. “I shoulda broke down and got some breakfast this morning.”

And I should have walked over to the firehouse long before this. We talked a few minutes more, as I wanted to see David improving, and he appeared to be. Finally, I told him, “Look, I’m not waiting any more. You sit right here and I’m going to go down to the station.”

He waved a hand in acknowledgement as I jogged off.

Engine House No. 2 houses a pumper and a paramedic unit. When I arrived at the entrance and peeked through the window, both were gone. I headed over toward another door, behind which I heard what sounded like a television, and was about to knock when, as if on cue, the station’s paramedic truck turned a corner and pulled up behind me. One of the paramedics got out to stop traffic while the driver guide the truck back into the garage. I went over to tell her about David and pointed to where he was.

“Did you get a 9-1-1 call about this?” I asked.

“No, didn’t hear about it,” she said.

But after I alerted her, she whistled to the driver, climbed back aboard the truck and it veered off in David’s direction. I jogged part way back up the block in time to see the truck turned around and parked by David, who now was on his knees looking over the concrete barrier. He saw me and waved. I waved back as the paramedics disembarked.

Then I continued on my walk, turning over in my head all that happened over the past 34 minutes.

Where I live near downtown St. Louis, the disenfranchised are neighbors. Homeless and home owners attend the same churches and shop the same stores, as they have for years. The numbers in either group have risen and fallen with the economy, but the groups themselves are constants. Lately, it seems there are just as many whites as blacks occupying either of them.

There also are businesses and services among us, big and small, suffering scars from the slings and arrows of our outrageous economy. Jobs have disappeared, services have been cut, and uncertainty has increased. The home owners in my neighborhood, I am sure, have looked at the homeless lately and worried if they might soon join them.

But I wonder now, for the first time, what the people providing services around here see. When I called 9-1-1 for David, the question of color came up without my provocation. And it was the only physical attribute specifically requested. Height, weight, physical build, type of injury — none of these apparently mattered.

As far as I’m concerned, skin tone shouldn’t either. Maybe David wasn’t as frustrated by waiting as I was because he knew already that it did.