PMSimon.com

You saw it in the papers, or you heard it on the news: a new list of America's fattest and fittest cities says Chicago is America's fattest. Lots of surprises on the list, too. Quite provocative, and I've already heard talk radio hosts discussing it.

But none of them ask a simple question: how was the survey compiled?

(Chicago) catapulted to the highest spot in 2006 because it has the survey's worst workout environment, said Men's Fitness editor Neal Boulton. The ranking "is not really based upon what a person does at the dinner table," Boulton said. "It's not about going around counting the number of overweight people. It's about a call of arms to mayors and governors to provide public health initiatives that will stem tide of obesity."

In other words, they kinda made it up. Oh, there are some statistics, but they threw in some whoppers that let them use the "survey" to punish politically incorrect city governments.

Now, there are things in the rankings that should raise red flags among the nation's newspaper editors and TV and radio news assignment editors. First, the moves of certain cities- L.A. from 21st to 3rd fattest, Long Beach from 20th to 7th, Philadelphia from 2nd all the way to 23rd in a single year- ought to raise red flags, because there's no way on an objective basis that swings that wild would be possible.

And a look at the methodology ought to raise more red flags. It starts out in a vaguely promising manner:

The 50 largest U.S. cities were selected using the most recent United States Census Bureau statistics available at the time of the survey, which was conducted from August 2005 through October 2005. Cities were assessed in 17 weighted categories, using data specific to each city, except when data was available only for a metropolitan statistical area or for a state. (When no data was available, a neutral score was assigned.)

OK, where did the data come from? Let's look:

Gyms/Sporting Goods: Composite score, equally weighing (a) total number of clubs, gyms and fitness studios ranked per 100,000 population, from YellowPages.com; and (b) total number of sporting-goods retailers ranked per 100,000 population, from YellowPages.com.

Since when is the number of sporting goods stores in a market an indicator of health? Was the Northeast suddenly less healthy when the Herman's World of Sporting Goods chain went belly-up several years ago? Did L.A. get unhealthy when Oshman's started to disappear, and did its health come back when Sportmart entered the field? Besides, anyone else notice how inaccurate the Yellow Pages listings are? My local SBC and Verizon books seem to be missing some major retail operations in every category.

Nutrition: Composite score, equally weighing (a) average frequency of fruit and vegetable consumption (percent of people who consume five or more servings per day) in state-level data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System; and (b) total number of health-food stores ranked per 100,000 population, from YellowPages.com.

Again with the retail! We have a new Whole Foods seemingly in every town- does that make us healthier or trendier? (And how, exactly, do the CDC and Prevention surveys measure who eats five servings a day?)

And so on, through junk food (again, number of outlets per 100,000), alcohol (number of taverns per 100,000), TV watching (wouldn't this be pretty much the same nationwide? Doesn't, say, "Desperate Housewives" do the same basic share in most markets?), climate (wouldn't this be irrelevant if people can WORK OUT INDOORS?), and on and on and then you hit paydirt, the real way they ranked the cities:

Mayor & City Leadership (new): Composite score, weighing (a) mayoral participation in, or promotion of, public fitness events; (b) position reporting to mayor responsible for antiobesity programs or citywide fitness initiatives (sometimes called "fitness czar"); (c) current citywide antiobesity or fitness initiatives; (d) mayor's personal example and exercise habits.

So a city that wastes money on a public relations campaign and a patronage job for some friend-of-the-Mayor is healthier than one that spends it on education or police. Oh, and if the mayor's out of shape, that's another demerit. (By that token, L.A. has a relatively fit Mayor and Arnold in the State House- that ought to make it a winner) And:

Obesity-Related Legislation (new) : Points were awarded for (a) state "snack taxes;" (b) state-based nutrition and physical-activity programs; and (c) participation in the federal Steps to a Healthier U.S. program. Points were subtracted for states that have laws limiting liability for purveyors of junk food. Data reported by the Trust for America's Health.

If your city is passing punitive social-engineering legislation financially punishing you for having the occasional potato-chip craving, it's fitter. If your state quite reasonably has limited liability for snack food makers with the understanding that IF YOU EAT JUNK FOOD, YOU KNOW THE RISKS AND YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BLAME SOMEONE ELSE FOR YOUR SPARE TIRE, your city is not fit.

So, basically, this is advocacy disguised as "research." And the editors eat it up, because, well, what's the harm? And there isn't much harm, unless you think that the news ought to be a little more, you know, factual.

But this kind of thing goes on all the time- you put out a list, and you'll be quoted in the news as if you're Gallup or Nielsen. That "Boring Institute" guy was able to con every newspaper and wire service into reporting his annual "most boring celebrity" list as if there was really an institute of scholars researching what's boring. (He's a PR guy, naturally) Mr. Blackwell made himself into a national celebrity without ever quite having to do much other than release a list every year. And then there's that "other" talk radio trade magazine that annually puts out a list of what it claims are the 100 most influential talk radio hosts in America, only you've never heard of half of them and several seem to be, well, advertisers. And it's cited uncritically in bios and articles as a major honor, and the editor/publisher is often quoted as an expert in talk radio. The basis for the list? None. It's really one guy's opinion, no voting involved. Totally subjective, and he admits it- the only qualification is that you have to, er, have a show. And that's how people with literally no ratings, no following, and no influence make the list (and some who DO have ratings and influence are missing).

That's my mistake. I really AM an expert on talk radio, and I don't get quoted much, because I don't have a list. I should make a list. One press release and I'll be in every paper in America. We should all make lists. It really IS that easy.

 Share

For the several thousand people (it seems like that, anyway) who've asked today:

1. Yes, I did.

2. Disappointed. Mostly the same show he's been doing for the last few years with a few expletives. Nothing innovative, nothing "revolutionary." And he didn't even bring back some of the 20-year-old bits he promised he'd do again that he "couldn't do for the last ten years" because "the man" was harshing his mellow or something. Nothing insightful or all that entertaining or funny. And I know he's capable of better because I've heard him do better.

3. What you're seeing on the Net with his fans is a bunch of people convincing themselves that the money they've laid out on the equipment and subscription hasn't been wasted. And it hasn't- the music channels are good and the NFL and NBA are on there, too. And he can do better- this was only the first day, after all. Gotta give him some time to get his bearings. But you'd expect a show several months in the making to have more than eight month old Pat O'Brien tapes. Why not discuss Brad and Jennifer's breakup or Tom Cruise's couch-jumping while you're on the ancient-gossip kick?

4. If he really thinks he's not competing with his old stations anymore, why bother trying to get on the air with his replacement to "offer advice"?

5. I'll keep listening. But I expected more right out of the box. Oh, well.

 Share

Tonight was a late one, and I'm beat, so nothing this time. Maybe some thoughts about indecency, politicians, and calendars tomorrow. Maybe not. We'll see.

 Share

What was I saying yesterday? Oh, yeah, indecency. You know, I've beaten this one into the ground over and over and it never changes. The one thing that's interesting is that while I've often said that indecency has no friends in Washington, it's not from a lack of trying. An example is Jeff Jarvis' attempt to get onto that "decency" panel at the Senate Commerce Committee tomorrow. He tried; no response. Meanwhile, L. Brent Bozell always makes it on there. So does Jack Valenti. But the only radio representative is from Bonneville, and they're for obvious reasons not supportive of broadcasters charged with indecency; he'll repeat the NAB's mantra about the industry's desire to cooperate with its tormentors ("please don't hit me"). Nobody will be there to tell the Senators that they're full of crap.

But the prudes always get to play. Bozell is treated like he actually represents a significant number of people instead of a handful of the lame, feeble, and repressed. Likewise, in Detroit, some clown named Bill Johnson is on the warpath against the Detroit Pistons cheerleaders' calendar, and the papers are printing articles as if it's a real protest instead of a weirdo obsessed with Howard Stern and risque catalogs and calendars. And he apparently gets called upon as an "expert" by CNN, MSNBC, and Fox instead of being ignored as the crank he is.

I think the key is to give yourself a name that sounds like it's a big group. Bozell is the "Parents Television Council," and Johnson is the "American Decency Association." Maybe Jeff should be the "American Indecency Association." The "National Council For Explicit Broadcasting." The "National Association of Penis." OK, not the last one. But if they think you have a lot of supporters, they'll listen.

Also, you have to give them money. I haven't figured out a way around that one yet.

 Share

Radio news from WZZK Birmingham:

The news release says the Cox station's new morning show, "Cash and Kari," features Keith "Cash" Connors, a veteran of nearly 20 years in the Atlanta radio market -- about half of that time as part of the "Rhubarb and Connors" morning show on Y-106 -- and most recently working with "Kelly & Alpha" on Cox sister station B-98.5. The show's other half, Kari Powell, was most recently a traffic reporter at WSB-AM and WSB-TV in Atlanta, and has been teamed with Connors previously as part of the Rhubarb and Connors show.

Cash. Kari. Cash and Kari. Cash and Carry- geddit?

Ha ha.

And that's not even the worst one I've heard.

Really, you walk into the PD's office and they tell you "look, man, your new partner's name is Kari so we're gonna call you 'Cash,' OK?" and you don't look for a new line of work, you deserve what you get, which is likely a new job and a new name every year or two. (There might be more money in it than a career in french fry distribution, actually, but you gotta weigh that against having as many names as Dr. Johnny Fever over the course of a decade)

(That's another reason I preferred working in talk radio. When I programmed talk stations, even the fake air names were real-sounding names. (OK, "Mother Love" wasn't a real-sounding name, but that was visited upon me. And Larry wasn't "Fast Larry Wax" by the time he worked with me) When I did music stations, we had the usual Chases and St. Jameses and other that-can't-be-on-your-drivers-license names that scream "radio guy." But I managed to work in radio for a long time without ever having to tell anyone they had to change their name to some pukey, goofy radio thing.

Well, there WAS the time we had the traffic reporters on New Jersey 101.5 use names like Tom Rivers (Matt Ward, still there) and Harvey Cedars and Cherry Hill and other plays on New Jersey town names, but that was Big Jay's idea, honest! Hey, WE thought it was funny....)

 Share

Had a whole thing written about the James Frey affair, but then I decided I didn't care enough, plus I ended up using a laser pointer to drive Ella the World's Most Famous Cat crazy (laser pointer=best cat toy ever) and half-watching the Sixers try to get back into the game against the Celtics, and soon enough it was late and I really didn't have much else in me. Sorry.

Really, though, the laser pointer IS the greatest toy to drive cats nuts. They think the red dot is alive or something and they chase it and try to stomp on it. Ella's gonna sleep well tonight, because she's been exercising plenty.

(And memo to ESPN: you did not have to show that clip again, just because it's the Sixers and Celtics tonight. You know what I mean.)

 Share

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's web site poses the important questions:

Rumor had it, and now publicists deny, that Brad Pitt called ex-wife Jennifer Aniston to let her in on new love Angelina Jolie’s pregnancy. If you were Brad and Angelina, would you have warned the former Mrs. Pitt?

If you have an answer for that, you need to reevaluate the course your life is taking.

 Share