What's your agency's standard for quality? It seems unrealistic to expect quality standards of 100% . . . after all, nobody's perfect. Wouldn't life be a lot easier and less stressful if everyone accepted a certain amount of predictable human frailty and built in a margin for error? It could even be called something impressive and positive sounding-'acceptable quality level,' for example.

It's popular to hate the press these days. Between visions of Princess Diana's mangled black sedan and MSNBC's apparent broadcasting credo of 'all Monica, all the time,' it's easy to see why. Many who don't go so far as to hate the press still distrust it, thinking that a broadcaster's emotional ties begin and end with the Nielsen ratings. Again, given today's programming, this isn't difficult to understand.

Do you think reporters are human sharks who want to misquote, distort, and sensationalize? When you hear the word 'reporter,' does your instinct tell you to utter 'no comment'? Or instruct your secretary to tell the reporter you won't be in your office for, say, the next 11 years?