The Washington Post recently had an article about DC in the movies, highlighting director James L. Brooks for really getting Washington. From All the President’s Men to his latest, How Do You Know?, he displays an excellent understanding of the culture of the city.

We’re not like Chicago or LA or New York. The people here are different, with their own unique challenges and motivations. New Yorkers may think that, just like there are no good bagels in DC, there’s no real “there” in Washington. It’s a transient city, with no realness about it. (Or, as a friend of mine from NYC once said, there’s no “bounty” to it.)

There’s a grain of truth to that assessment – it is a transient city, drawing in and expelling different political classes with each election. But most DC residents don’t work on Capitol Hill. They somehow manage to function without being part of the political class.

Members of the Tea Party view Washington as Babylon, center of sin and wickedness, where overpaid bureaucrats extract the wealth of the nation. I am not one to say that government is great. In fact, having worked in government myself, I think that government tries to do way too much. However, most feds I’ve known have a strong sense of service and in no way match up to the stereotype of government officials.

The rare movie that really understands the people of Washington is James L. Brooks’ Broadcast News. In this workplace drama, Holly Hunter plays Jane Craig, a TV news producer. She’s driven, a workaholic with an uncompromising faith in the honest tenets of journalism. Albert Brooks is Aaron Altman, her friend and an on-air correspondent. He’s secretly in love with her.

Into this world comes William Hurt. He’s a telegenic, on-the-rise reporter. With his slick manner and phony emotions, he represents everything that Jane hates and fears about the future of the news. It’s style over substance and, despite her beliefs, she finds herself falling for him.

Despite being made more than twenty years ago, there’s so much that this film gets right about Washingtonians:

1. The city is filled with people who want to change the world. Jane has a religious belief in the power of news. An early scene shows Jane giving a presentation to an audience of news reporters, trying to explain an important policy change that all the news broadcasts missed. But the journalists are bored by this, which Jane finds intolerable.
2. We’re fast-talking know-it-alls. Despite being from the South, Jane has the “rapid patter of the overeducated” (that’s how I described Washingtonspeak in my book). A running joke in the movie is Jane telling taxi drivers which routes to take, for she knows better than they do. Aaron is even worse – he’s shown in a flashback delivering a valedictory address where he insults the quality of the education that he’s received.
3. Work and life are intermingled. Broadcast News presents work as family. For all the characters, there’s no real life outside of the office, where they find love and companionship. And when there’s a layoff (because the network couldn’t program Wednesday nights), it’s brutal.

These themes are expressed in this funny exchange:

				PAUL
		It must be nice to always believe
		you know better.  To think you're
		always the smartest person in the
		room.

				JANE
			(from her depths)
		No, it's awful.  Oh my, it's awful.

I remember seeing the movie not too long after it came out. I hated it. The characters are really unlikeable, and redeemed only by the performances of Holly Hunter, Albert Brooks and William Hurt. Would you like to be friends with a know-it-all like Jane? Do you want to have no work/life separation? Is your job a job or a holy mission?

The movie was too real for me – I know ambitious folks just like this. I’ve worked in places where a sense of mission was used as an excuse to mistreat employees. And I’ve seen what happens when the pursuit of fulfillment in work goes wrong.

Over the years, my attitude toward Broadcast News has mellowed. Certain things are still grating. Aaron in the movie is just a needy jerk. His insecurities are supposed to be charming but that Woody Allen schtick has aged badly.

And the ending is tacked-on. Things come to a climax where everything gets resolved, tragically. Jane is alone in a cab.

And then there is another ending, seven years later. A happier one. Sometime in those seven years, magically, everyone found a way to change and be happy.

Beware movies where a title card comes up reading, “Years Later.” That’s when the screenwriter has written themselves into a box and needs to get out of it. Surely, we can’t leave Jane alone and unhappy – this is a comedy.

Despite its flaws, Broadcast News is the best way to experience a little of what it’s like to actually live in DC. Maybe you won’t become a career-driven workaholic, but you’ll certainly be surrounded by them. And you’ll have to cope with crusaders, confident that they know best, whether it’s recycling, caroling on the Metro or how to mix a cocktail. People here also talk way too fast and have their own ideas about how to get from Dulles to Dupont.

Like the city itself, I have a love/hate relationship with this movie. Broadcast News gets too much right – and just a little wrong – to be comfortable viewing for me. For those outside of DC, it’s probably the best way to experience life in Washington, getting just a taste of life in the city from the comfort of your living room.

Check out my article on FlackRabbit. It’s about how should help employers find you by orienting your resume to their needs.

It’s the end of the year, and the end of a decade. What were my favorite projects of 2009? What did I have the most fun working on?

Murder in Ocean Hall

I can’t help myself, I like to write fiction. People have asked me how I could leave my job and then spend countless hours alone, in a coffee shop, writing a novel. I’ve offered advice on setting a schedule and being committed, but the truth is that writing a book is a huge sacrifice and something that you must really, really want to do. And something that you must enjoy doing more then anything else.

DC Shorts Film Festival

This year, I made sure to really enjoy the festival, not only as a screenplay contest judge but as a participant. For the first time, I was in town for all the parties and saw some great films, including Funky Prairie Boy. What’s great about DC Shorts is that you get to meet filmmakers and other creative folks in a very relaxed, friendly atmosphere. And with the Screenplay Competition held a month after the main festival, I got to enjoy both events. The funny thing about being a volunteer is that if you show up and prove to be reliable, you get given all sorts of other interesting duties. For DC Shorts, I’ve been a film judge, screenplay competition manager, executive judge, film panel moderator, assistant emcee, furniture mover and event photographer – anything for the cause!

Transparency Camp

“One time, at Transparency Camp…” Embarrassing, I know, but Transparency Camp was really a revelation for me. Having worked in government, I firmly believe that it should be more transparent and accountable, which was the focus of the event. The most interesting part was the format – it was an “un-conference” where the participants devised the agenda and put on the presentations. And it was free. That’s a tremendous development, because most web conferences cost thousands of dollars and feature sitting in cold rooms looking at PowerPoint presentations from various experts. By contrast, the un-conference format enables tapping the knowledge of the group in a democratic and open session. Plus, free beer!

Pink Line Project

The end of the year found me embarking on a new project – interviews with artists and other interesting DC creatives for the Pink Line Project. These are people who are risk-takers, who go out and start film and theater festivals. I think that everyone is creative and with my interview series I hope to encourage others to write that book or make that painting.

Too much exposure to USAJOBS has really turned me cynical. Despite news reports on the need to recruit thousands of new employees, the main federal jobs site is a usability nightmare, unfathomable to even people who work on web sites, like me. While the site has few defenders, some have argued that it has to be that way, because it’s the government. Federal requirements dictate its complexity and difficulty.

There’s got to be another way! And there is. It’s the job site for the Congressional Budget Office. The site is a model of simplicity and common sense, where you can apply for a job in minutes, rather than hours. Let me spell out the differences between the CBO site and USAJOBS:

• It’s all one site.You’re not bounced to a separate organizational site to complete a whole other application, like you would if you applied for a job with Agriculture from USAJOBS.
• An easy password. You don’t need a complicated ten character password with upper and lower case letters plus numbers.
• Upload or copy and paste your documents. Choose which is easier for you – either upload a Word doc or copy and paste your resume. You don’t have to enter information job by job. Supporting docs can also be uploaded.
• No KSAs.
• Job descriptions less than a page long, in plain language.
• No confusing instructions to fax or snail mail in additional information. It’s 100% online.
• It’s well-designed. The site makes excellent use of white space and provides strong visual cues for users, such as making the “Submit Application” button blue and placing it at the bottom of the right-hand menu.

Why can’t the rest of government do this? The site is not complicated, in fact it looks like it was designed in the late 1990s. But it’s simple and easy for visitors. It’s oriented around their top tasks, as good government sites are supposed to.

Looking at this site, USAJOBS makes even less sense to me.

A Guide to the Recovering Job Market

I’ve had the experience of looking for work during the worst economic periods of the last twenty years.  As a recent college graduate, I passed out resumes during the post-Cold War sag of the early 1990s.  I was an unemployed web editor following the collapse of the dotcom bubble in 2002. 

And I’m looking for work now.  My timing has been impeccable; I’ve left jobs at precisely the worst times.

In Washington, we’re better off than the rest of the country but not immune to down times.  Slowly, however, things are getting better.  My experience has been that job market goes through four distinct stages.

1.  No Jobs Nowhere

The market is flooded with layoffs.  Talented people with years of experience find themselves packing their knicknacks in a box and being escorted out by security.  Companies retrench, battered by epic losses and the prospect of even worse to come.  This isn’t malaise; this is fear and panic.  There are few job postings and many applicants.  Companies that are hiring become commitment-phobic.  You may interview for months at a single organization and then, one day, they send an email saying they’re not ready to hire.

This is a bleak period, a time of scam artists, when job-search consultants say that they have exclusive jobs available nowhere else, all for a fee charged to your credit card every month, forever.  Don’t believe it.  Who knows more about your situation and your industry than you do?

For many this is a period of reinvention, as they decide to apply to grad school, switch careers, drive aimlessly across the United States or write that mystery novel.  This is a positive approach to a difficult situation beyond your control.

At this point, you just want to survive.  Sell your crap on eBay, scale back your expenses, move in with your parents.  It’s not personal.  It’s not the universe screwing you over or an indictment of your skills and experience – it’s just that job market sucks.  There’s nothing you can do about it.

2.  The Jobs No One Wants

Even the worst times come to an end.  The job market slowly starts to open up.  With the faintest glimmers of hope, beaten-down employees begin to bail out of positions that they hate.  Good news – jobs are available!  Bad news – they’re awful.  Who’s hiring?

• The nonprofit association who thinks that they can get someone to design their web site, write their fundraising letters, help with the annual meeting and be an Excel wiz while manning the front desk and answering phones – all at a salary less than a Burger King assistant manager. 
• The entrepreneur who’s got an idea he thinks is just brilliant.  You’ll have to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement to learn about it, of course, and he can’t pay you in, well, money, but, if hired, you will receive stock options which will certainly make you a millionaire.  Some day.
• The boss with anger management issues.  Going in, the HR representative will be very excited to meet you.  They’ve had a hard time filling this position and the rep will be all smiles, trying not to scare you off.  She may ask you about how you deal with challenges and explain that every workplace has its dramas.  The office will be deadly quiet and people will rush past you in a panic.  The boss will keep you waiting, brusquely question you and then demand that you start immediately.
• The company with the impossible job requirement.  They may ask for ten years of experience in software that’s only been around for five. 
• The band of lunatics who just needs one more to complete the set.  Everything is flexible, they’ll explain – duties, job titles, supervisors.  There’s no org chart.  It’s hard to tell who’s in charge.  Everyone swarms on projects like second-graders chasing a soccer ball.  And, in the evenings, the office gets wildly drunk together.  Like Gray’s Anatomy, everyone has slept with everyone else by this point.  They’re a little bored and want you to join the tribe.

You may be tempted to take one of these jobs.  If you do so, make sure the company offers mental health benefits.  You’ll need them.  

3.  Jobs Yes, Pay Not So Much

The market has improved.  Companies have lost their fear.  They’re willing to take on new employees but the price has to be right.  Positions you’re actually interested in are available but they pay less than what you made before.  They’re good jobs with good organizations that realize their power in the market.  They can bid down talent and have an incentive to do so, because the economy is still a little uncertain.

Taking one of these jobs is a very personal decision.  You must measure your bank balance, your tolerance for risk, the prospect that this opportunity may lead to something better.  If you have a mortgage to pay, take this job.  Can you negotiate a higher salary later on?  It’s not impossible, but much more difficult once you’re in the job.  Can you take this job and then leave after a few months for something better?  Yes, but you’ll have to explain that awkward spot in your resume in the future.

4.  Jobs, Glorious Jobs!

The invisible hand has done its work and the job market is restored.  Decent jobs at decent salaries are now available.  Your calls are returned, your applications are responded to.  Recruiters call, with orders on their books. 

But it’s been a long process.  My experience is that it takes around six months to get to this stage.  But if you’ve held out this long, you have a good shot at finding an opportunity that will be both rewarding and remunerative.  You’re going to spend a big part of your life working in an office.  Make sure it’s the right one.

I took the StrengthsFinder 2.0 test. It asks you a series of questions on how you like to work, how you get along with other people and how you’ve organized your life. You have 20 seconds to answer each question because they want your gut responses, without a lot of thinking. The same kind of questions are asked again and again, in slightly different formulations, to find out how strongly you feel about something. When answering, you choose a range of responses from “agree strongly” to “disagree strongly.”

When you’re done with this online test (it takes 20-30 minutes to complete), you’re presented with a list of your top five strengths.  Here’s mine:

I strongly agree with the core philosophy of StrengthsFinder – you should concentrate your efforts on what you’re best at, rather than trying to improve upon your weaknesses. Not only is this a more efficient use of your time, it’s more likely to lead to happiness.

Trying to see the future of digital media.

I recently attended SXSW Interactive, a conference on new media in Austin, TX, from March 7-12. Attracting digital creatives as well as visionary technology entrepreneurs, the event celebrates the best minds and the brightest personalities of emerging technology.

Taking place on three floors of the Austin convention center, the event is overwhelming, with sessions beginning at 10 and running to 5 with bonus events and parties in the evening. There were usually about a dozen different things you could do at any time during the day. For example, at 11:30 on Saturday you could choose from panels on e-commerce, managing communities that work, Expression Engine 2.0 sneak peek, accessible rich media, the contextual web or “how to rawk SXSW and achieve geekgasm”. In addition to the panels, you could also go to book readings, take part in smaller “core conversations” on select topics, visit the trade show or pop into the ScreenBurn Gaming Fest.

The evenings featured parties and events where you could meet fellow techies. I went to the Dorkbot happy hour (geeks showing off their robots), a BikeHugger happy hour (with excellent barbecue), the SXSW Web Awards (sponsored by Adobe) and the “Rock Bands Rock Opera” party, sponsored by a company called Opera. These were excellent opportunities to drink free beer and meet other web folks from around the country.

It amazed me how tech-savvy the participants at the conference were. Nearly everyone had an iPhone, it seemed, and those who didn’t brought laptops to the conference to take advantage of the convention center’s speedy wifi service. The conference provided many handy online tools for participants. For example, I created my own calendar of events and downloaded it to my iPhone. SXSW also featured a mobile version of the conference program and a daily blog that I could read on my iPhone. I took notes on my iPhone so I didn’t need to carry paper around at all.

However, I was a Luddite compared to many people, who were updating what they were doing on Twitter and Facebook, uploading pictures to Flickr, making podcasts, and chatting about the sessions they were in in Meebo.

The overall theme of the conference was excitement over the future of the web. Participants in the conference shared an evangelical confidence in technology. This confidence was not placed in big companies but in small, organic teams, reflecting the DIY attitude of Austin and SXSW.

I’ll write more about the experience in the coming days.

A fascinating post by Marc Andreeson on rebuilding Hollywood in Silicon Valley’s image.  Here’s his inspiring conclusion:

However, in the event of a long-term strike, out of the ashes of the traditional model would — I believe — come the birth of certainly dozens, maybe hundreds, and possibly even thousands of new media companies, rising phoenix-like into the global entertainment market, financed by venture capital, creating amazing new properties, employing large numbers of people, and rewarding their creators as owners.

As someone who’s made a career out of working on web sites, and has dabbled with filmmaking,  I’m ready for this new world.  When you build a web site, it’s all point and click, online collaboration, drag and drop, copy, paste, submit.  When you make a movie, it’s about printing out scripts, stuffing them in envelopes and pitching your ideas in person to people far removed from the actual decision-makers.

This is a world that’s calling out for disintermediation.  The moviemaking business is filled with gatekeepers (like studios and agents) that add costs and keep consumers from getting the content they want.  Andreeson rightly points out the music industry as an obvious parallel.

I have a friend who gets all his media from YouTube.  He doesn’t watch TV.  I suspect that, the longer the strike drags on, the more people will be like my friend.

The Internet has utterly changed countless industries.  Now, with advent of the writers’ strike, it’s Hollywood’s turn.

An excellent post by Penelope Trunk on blogging under your real name. As someone who’s been online in one form of another since 1996, I couldn’t agree more with her advice.

As I said in my comment, blogging is a great way to increase your visibility online through that arbitrer of importance these days, Google. If Google can’t find you, do you really exist? We’ll leave that philosophical question for another time. In practical terms, being online has greatly helped me find jobs, expands my network and allow old friends to track me down.

Why did I initially decide to go online? Vanity. I was a writer of short stories who felt that I should be more widely known. My stories had been accepted in some very very small literary publications with circulations of less than a thousand subscribers. The process of your story being accepted by one of these journals is to snail mail it to an editor and wait 3-12 months for them to get back to you. This ancient process still exists today.

After AOL announced that they would provide space on the Web for their users, I taught myself HTML and published several pages online. (Unbelievably, they are still there.) I was not a computer person or a geek, just a frustrated writer who wanted to publish his short stories online. I’m not sure how much the world was interested in my tales of adolescent longing but my vanity led me to a whole new career as a web person.

In his book, The 4-Hour Workweek, author Timothy Ferriss discusses the idea of taking a “mini-retirement” while you’re still young enough to enjoy it. His point is that we Americans have it all wrong. We work hard through our youth to save up for a retirement in old age. That seems backwards to him – we should have our fun now, while we still can.

This is something I’ve always believed in. “You have the rest of your life to work,” I’ve counseled others who have considered taking a few months away from cubicle land. We’re fortunate to live in this historically unique time and place where jobs are plentiful. You’re not going to starve and there will be work for you when you come back, at least if you’re lucky enough to be a college graduate in America.

However, mini-retirement has costs and benefits that need to be considered. In my own life, I’ve tried to alternate my creative pursuits (writing) and my career (web person). I’ve taken several mini-retirements so that I could write. Here are the costs and the benefits:

August 1991 – December 1992: I leave my nascent career as an Information Assistant in Washington, DC, and move home to Florida. I work as a temp while I write a novel. I’m completely broke, live with my parents and yet am really happy.

• Cost: I’m “behind” some of my friends who are becoming successful in their careers.
• Benefit: I write a novel, my most important life goal.

July – October 1996: The Internet has just begun to take off. I’ve created my first web site, so that I can publish my fiction. I leave my library job behind and take several months off to travel and write. I also think there has to be a way for me to find a job doing this new web stuff.

• Cost: None. I don’t make any money for three months but I get a new and much better job as an Internet Content Consultant.
• Benefit: I work on my writing and edit the script of an independent film, Carrots and Onions. Reading someone else’s screenplay convinces me that screenwriting is something I can do. Perhaps more importantly, with my web job I’ve switched fields. For the first time in my life, I feel like I have a career not just a job.

December 2001 – May 2002: A few months after 9/11, it’s a terrible time for a mini-retirement. My plan, formalated earlier in the year, of taking a couple months off to travel and work on a screenplay stretches into a half-year of intermittent freelance work.

• Cost: My finances suffer a major blow from the months of semi-paid freelance work. And when I finally find a new job, it pays less than my old job. My friends are buying homes, piling up $$ in their 401Ks, having kids. And spending lots of time in the office.
• Benefit: Though it’s tough to see as I look at my bloated credit card balance, the work and connections made during this time will pay off later. I finish my script, Mount Pleasant, which in 2006 will win the Film DC screenplay competition. And, with plenty of time on my hands, I become part of the local film community and meet people I will work with in the 48 Hour Film Project (2003, 2006) and DC Shorts. I also get into photography, a hobby that will bring me much joy.

Mini-retirements are not without cost. However, they’ve added a richness of experience to my life that is truly priceless.