I think it’s encouraging that, according to the Wall Street Journal, the Federal Reserve and its chairman Ben Bernanke are working to become more open and communicative — not only with the media, but also with the American public. They may even decide to hold regular news conferences

Former Reserve chief Alan Greenspan prided himself on being as unclear as possible. In his 15 years on the job, he did only one on-the-record TV interview and rarely took questions after speeches. His hesitancy to communicate is understandable given that anything he said could cause a major earthquake in the markets.

But I wonder if this lack of clarity is also part of the problem. I doubt that very many people in this country, myself included, truly understand our economic system, let alone what caused the crisis we’re in and how the government plans to get us out of it. What people don’t understand they tend to distrust or ignore.

Earlier this year, lack of clear communication from the administration was one of the reasons President Obama had such a difficult time selling his recovery plans. Since then, the White House has been trying harder to keep us in the loop.

According the the WSJ, Bernanke said in an interview, “I think it’s important for the public to understand what is going on and to know that the government is trying to solve the problem. They should know we have a plan and a strategy.”

He’s right. The days of obfuscation are over. We need leaders who can explain to us in clear, simple terms — not economic gobbledygook — just what we’re in for.

Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal’s chief of staff inferred that the reason his boss’s Democratic response speech got such bad reviews was because he followed the President. “It’s a challenge for anybody to follow Obama. The guy is one of the most gifted speakers of our generation,” said Timmy Teepell.

That’s probably true. The problem is, Jindal would have also looked bad following one of the least gifted speakers of our time, George W. Bush.

One pundit described the speech as “amateurish.” I agree. What’s surprising is that a state governor and someone thought to be the future of the Republican party could have performed so poorly.

Both the content and delivery were sub par. Yes, he told stories, but the stories were stupid and out of place. His arguments for less government were superficial and not the right message for the speech he was giving. He tried to be friendly and conversational, but it came across as forced. While the delivery got a bit better as he went along, much of it was sing song with repetitive, irritating gestures.

If Jindal aspires to run for national office, he’d better get some speech coaching.

A seven minute, 42-second-long answer. A six minute answer. Three and four minute answers. Even listening to the most powerful person in the world — and a verbally adept one at that — I (and much of the rest of America) just don’t have the attention span to listen intently to someone talking that long. (A 50-second answer was a welcome relief.)

Obama is refreshingly articulate (especially compared to our last President). He “knows his stuff.”  But he needs to answer more succinctly. Whether we like it or not, this is a soundbite society. No matter how long his answer, the media (and the public) will boil it down to one sentence or ten seconds — if they even understand the bottom line.  Better for him to boil it down for us so we can focus on the essence of his answer.

Obama is such a good communicator, I know he will figure it out: he doesn’t have to show how smart he is by saying everything he knows. One of the hardest things for knowledgeable people to do is decide what to leave out.

The good: Knowledgeable, transparent, friendly and conversational. And — He handled one of the first of many questions about loose-cannon Joe Biden effectively.

The not-so-good: Near the beginning of the Q and A, he repeated a negative while answering a question about bipartisanship. “I don’t think I underestimated it.” [How hard it would be to change the way Washington works]

But, here’s the best news: at least he didn’t say “misunderestimate.”

Remember how hard reporters tried (to no avail) to get George Bush to admit he made mistakes in Iraq? Well, just two weeks into his administration, President Barack Obama has admitted that he “screwed up” by supporting nominees who had tax and lobbying problems.

“I’m here on television saying I screwed up and that’s part of the era of responsibility, is not never making mistakes; it’s owning up to them and trying to make sure you never repeat them and that’s what we intend to do.”

If only all politicians and business people understood and practiced this pretty much fail safe PR rule: admit your mistakes and move on. (I always wonder what would have happened to Richard Nixon if he had admitted and apologized about the Watergate debacle.)

For Obama, fessing up was even more important because he campaigned on “change” in government. The soundbite, “I screwed up,” is bound to haunt him some time in the future. (I can see it played in a Republican commercial when Obama is running for re-election.)

Even so, it was the right thing to do and earns him the respect of all of us humble humans who make mistakes — despite our best efforts — and try not to repeat them.

You’ve got to hand it to Governor Rod Blagojevich. This guy is either a total loon, or the smartest person in the universe. Either way, you have to admit he has chutzpah. Instead of fighting against his impeachment in the Illinois Senate (or even attending his own trial), he mounted a massive PR campaign, doing a media tour of the country’s top news and talk shows.

The best article I saw appeared in the Denver Post. Columnist Al Lewis wrote, tongue in cheek, that he sees Blagojevich as a “one-of-a-kind American innovator in the field of crisis management,” and that the governor should write a book on the subject.

Blagojevich apparently has written off his chances of keeping his job and is laying the groundwork for his defense in his criminal trial by trying to win in the court of public opinion.

But here’s the important question: Will the American people see him as a charming “everyman” fighting injustice, or a shameless manipulator?

No industry understands and prepares for crises more than the airlines. They know it’s not whether an accident will happen, it’s when.

They conduct practice drills. They develop messages and statements ahead of time. They have emergency teams ready to go the moment anything happens.

So why was US Airways CEO Doug Parker so wooden and passionless in his news conference in Tempe, AZ, after one of his planes landed in the Hudson River Thursday?

Not only did he look uncaring, but he also never verbally expressed one bit of empathy about the forced landing. And if a plane accident can be “good,” this was one of them. Not one of the 155 people aboard was killed! Boats immediately came to the rescue. The pilot was already being called a hero for his expert water landing.

Yet, amidst all this emotion, there was Parker reading his dull statement in a constant monotone. In contrast, a short time later, New York governor David Paterson summed up what everyone was feeling in one powerful soundbite.

“There was a heroic pilot who saved himself and approximately 154 other passengers this afternoon. We had the miracle on 34th Street. I believe we now have the miracle on the Hudson.”

Also in his statement, Parker asked the media not to speculate on the cause of the accident, which is like asking a dog not to eat steak that falls on the floor. Besides, it was already being reported that birds likely caused both engines to fail.

If this is how Parker handles a relatively “good” crash, imagine how he’d handle a real catastrophe.

Um, er, you know, if you’ve ever wondered whether it’s worth the effort to break a verbal tic habit, listen to Caroline Kennedy. She finally talked to the media about her quest to become a New York Senator. She should have worked with a media coach first.

I’m sure Kennedy is a smart, knowledgeable woman, but after hearing her interviews you’d never know it. As an example, here’s what she said when asked by the NY Times what sets her apart from other candidates:

“I think that there’s a range of views in the Democratic Party, and you know, I am a proud Democrat. Those are the values, you know — middle class tax relief, helping working families, fixing the health care system — those are the national priorities right now. So those are the issues that I would expect — I mean, I am a Democrat, that is, you know — I am trying to become a Democratic senator.”

The Times interview transcript showed that Kennedy said “you know” 130 times. In a 30 minute interview with the NY Daily News, the total was even worse. She said “you know” more than 200 times, with “um” almost as often.

We’re all guilty, myself included, of using verbal tics in our conversations. But when it becomes bad enough that people start counting, it’s time to take action. No matter how smart you are, when you use fillers, people perceive that you are unsure and lack credibility.

Granted, the habit is difficult to break. You must be vigilant every moment of every day for three or four weeks, monitoring each conversation and voice mail. Friends and family have to help with feedback. Ultimately, the key is learning to substitute silence for the non-words.

The best medicine I know of is prescribed by Toastmasters clubs. Every time speakers use fillers during meetings, they hear a bell or buzzer. For many, it’s a rude awakening.

As for Caroline — whether she wins the Senate seat or not, she needs to lose the “you knows.”

Where is the outrage?

One week ago, an estimated 1.1 billion gallons of toxic coal ash and water burst through a retaining wall at a TVA coal plant in Tennessee. Of the 15 homes damaged by sludge as high as 6 feet, at least three have been called uninhabitable. Much of the ash flowed into the Clinch River, a tributary of the Tennessee. Environmental damage to the area will likely be severe and long term.

Some experts are calling this catastrophe the largest environmental disaster of its kind in the US. Others say that the 10.9 million gallons of oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez in Alaska pales in comparison.

Remember those days in March, 1989, when the national media pounced on Exxon, criticizing the company for its arrogance and slow reaction to the spill? The story went on for weeks, with the public and the media continually attacking the company. Exxon’s reputation still bears the scars of the crisis.

But this latest disaster in Tennessee has hardly registered on the importance scale of the national media. There were a few stories initially, but little ongoing reporting as people continue to be homeless, dead fish line the banks of the river, and area residents worry about ongoing health effects.

Where are the investigations into how something of this magnitude could have happened? Where are the questions about how the early estimates of the spill could have been so wrong? Where are the reports about why the TVA wasn’t more prepared to handle a crisis of this size?

What is the difference? Are we becoming so used to disasters that it’s old news? Are media organizations so bare bones these days they can’t cover anything beyond the presidential transition, Governor Blagojevich’s latest press conference, and Sarah Palin’s daughter? Or is because this disaster happened in Appalachia, a poor area not worth reporting on?

These days I’m even more cynical than when I was a reporter. Greed and corruption seem to be everywhere. Politicians say they are honored to serve the public, but many, if not most, of them really want to serve the interests of numero uno. Corporations and other organizations say they care about the public good, but for many, the public good is only important if it’s good for profits and bonuses.

I’ve been on vacation in Mexico for a week and in that time I’ve watched the governor of Illinois get arrested for trying to sell President-elect Obama’s senate seat; I’ve seen the highly respected and trusted owner of an investment firm rip off his clients and friends with an elaborate ponzi scheme; I’ve heard reports of a Los Angeles hospital CEO and the operator of a homeless facility conspiring to cheat Medicare by performing unneeded medical procedures on homeless people.

And that’s just the stuff we know about!

I fear the demise of the newspaper. Not only because I relish my moments with my morning coffee and paper, but also because I wonder who will fill the role of watchdog. Not that the press is always on top of things, flushing out the bad guys, but at least they catch the occasional politician, government employee, or executive with his hand in the cookie jar.

Sure, newspapers will still exist on line, but staffs have already been reduced to the point where something like investigative reporting is an unnecessary luxury. Can bloggers do the job? Will they have the resources and desire to accurately expose government and corporate excess, greed and corruption? We can only hope someone fills the vacuum.

It was too juicy to resist—and MSNBC couldn’t and didn’t. Sarah Palin thought Africa was a country, not a continent.

Problem is, it was a hoax. The so-called McCain advisor quoted, Martin Eisenstadt, doesn’t exist. He’s the creation of a pair of filmmakers who say they perpetuated the joke to help them pitch a TV show based on the character.

Their motives aren’t as important as the fact that MSNBC aired the story without checking it out. Spokesman Jeremy Gaines admitted, “It had not been vetted. It shouldn’t have made the air.”

But it did. As consumers of news, whether Republican or Democrat, I think we should be concerned. As the pranksters said, the blame lies with the shoddiness of the traditional news media and the blogosphere.

It’s also a result of the bias of so-called “news” stations, whether conservative (Fox) or liberal (MSNBC). If the story had been about President Elect Obama instead of Palin, you can bet MSNBC would have checked it out before broadcasting.

And as for corrections or retractions — I haven’t heard near as much about MSNBC being fooled as I did about the original story. I bet half the country still believes it was true. Check out the MSNBC web site. Not a mention.