1.12.2026

Craig Dellimore interview: the last time I was at City Hall

I recorded this interview with reporter Craig Dellimore at Chicago City Hall in 2018 and never posted the full transcript. I’m sharing it now as context for a newer audio interview, which you can listen to here. I wanted people to see what he experienced, and how he was treated.

How long have you been working here?

Well, at City Hall, I’ve been here doing the political editor’s job since 2001, so about 17 years. But I’ve been with WBBM Newsradio since 1983, so it’s been quite a while.

So you started when you were, like, ten?

You’re so kind. No, I was in my twenties and already pretty well into my career when I got here. It was a very different place then, and I arrived right when Harold Washington was starting to look like a serious candidate for mayor of Chicago.

How was it a different time? What was different?

So much has changed in Chicago politics in the last 35 years. What people thought of as the Democratic machine—the power structure that held the city for so long—was weakening. That’s why someone like Harold Washington could rise and become a formidable candidate.

My first assignment was man-on-the-street interviews after people felt Harold Washington won the first three-way debate between him, Richard M. Daley, and Jane Byrne.

On TV they always showed those chaotic meetings. Was it really that crazy in real life?

It really was that crazy. I wasn’t political editor then, but it was a wild time. Real battle lines were drawn. During the primary you had Daley, Jane Byrne—who had run against the machine but then became part of it—and Harold Washington, this upstart congressman.

When Washington became mayor, 29 aldermen banded together to block anything he wanted to do. People called them simply “the 29.” City council meetings were raucous—sometimes good-natured, sometimes bitter.

There was a Republican candidate, Bernard Epton, whose slogan was “Before It’s Too Late.” If that wasn’t a racial dog whistle, I don’t know what was. So the kind of racial and divisive politics people talk about today is nothing new.

So it really was racial? Were people saying racial things?

The candidates avoided overt racial statements, but regular people certainly made them. Harold Washington was good-humored, fearless, very bright, and well-spoken. He could be eloquent or plainspoken—saying things like, “Politics ain’t beanbag. It’s a tough game.” He was ready for it.

If someone shouted that they hated him, he would walk over and talk to them. There’s a photo in the press room of him smiling beside people holding anti-Harold Washington signs, and they’re smiling too. That was his power.

He was also the right candidate for the moment. African-American and Latino populations were growing, and lakefront liberals were looking for a champion. He might not have been perfect, but he was perfect for that time.

Did things ever calm down before he died?

Yes. After the initial turmoil, more African-Americans and more liberal aldermen were elected. Washington finally had the votes he needed. Unfortunately, he died way too soon. Even some of his opponents liked him.

I remember Edward Burke, the leader of the 29. There are recordings of him and Harold arguing on the council floor, but when one of them scored a point, they’d laugh. Burke once talked about winning money at the racetrack on a horse named Harold. Washington said he ought to get a cut. Burke said, “That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you—share the wealth.” They laughed and went back to work. Things had calmed down somewhat, and Washington was getting things done. Then that Thanksgiving week, he died.

He stayed that humorous and warm? It wasn’t just for campaigning?

No—he was genuinely funny. For about two years I was managing editor at WBBM, and around that Thanksgiving season he knew me because he did a monthly program called “Ask the Mayor.” He took calls from citizens and handled it wonderfully—he and Governor Jim Thompson were the two best at it.

One evening he came in and saw me working late. I told him I was managing editor now. He congratulated me and asked where my office was. I said I didn’t have one—I just sat at a desk. He asked if it meant more money. I said no. He leaned in and whispered, joking, “They do that to the first Black anything.” That was Harold—always funny, always accessible.

So you were the first Black managing editor?

Yes. But the station already had a history of diversity. I was the third African-American staffer at the time. It wasn’t treated like a historic event.

Did you have any problems in your job because of race?

No. Not at that point. Earlier in my career maybe, but not then. We were entering a new era. The bigger issue was covering the news fairly across all parts of the city.

What’s an example of being fair?

Crime coverage is always a struggle. If you cover every crime in an African-American neighborhood, you can make it look like a war zone. But if you ignore those crimes, you imply they don’t matter. And if someone is robbed downtown, we cover it; if someone is robbed on 47th Street, we should care equally. You balance it. You listen to what communities say matters to them—education, for example.

You said things were worse before the 80s. What did you mean?

We were coming out of the civil rights era and anti-war era. The riots happened in my lifetime. Newsrooms suddenly realized they had no Black reporters to send into Black neighborhoods, so they hired—but some people complained that hires were “just because they’re Black.” That attitude always exists.

When I was hired, I’m sure some people thought that. But I had worked at the AP for years. People knew my work.

How do you deal with doubters?

I ignore them. You erase doubt by doing your job well. I’m political editor—I’ve had a good career.

How did you get to this point?

By doing the work. I’ve had many jobs—legislative reporter, federal building, courts, Springfield. We used to send a reporter to Springfield weekly; for a while, that was me. Terrible drive—three hours of the flattest land you’ll ever see—but good experience.

I became suburban bureau chief. Funny title, because I was the only one in the bureau, but it worked.

What kinds of things did you cover in the suburbs?

Everything that happens downtown, but less noticed. Most listeners live in the suburbs. We launched the beat with a 15-part series on transportation. But transportation touches housing, poverty, homelessness, development.

If people work somewhere they can’t afford to live, they need transportation. People cleaning office buildings in the suburbs often can’t afford to live there.

We did a series on gangs. Yes, there are gangs in the suburbs. Naperville, which is usually low crime, has had a triple murder and a quadruple murder. Issues exist everywhere.

What about the relationship between suburbs and city?

It’s changed. Mayor Daley worked closely with suburban mayors—airport noise, transportation, rail corridors. Now there’s more isolation. Competition for federal dollars is tougher. Companies move into Chicago from the suburbs more often now.

Why are companies moving into the city?

Lifestyle, transportation, workforce, schools. People moved to the suburbs because the city felt too dangerous or too expensive. But affordable housing and lifestyle changes brought people back. On Friday night, do you want a long drive to a quiet suburb or to stay downtown?

The city is also marketing itself aggressively.

Is that because of the mayor?

Not just the mayor. Competition in general.

After the riots in the 60s, a lot of people left the city. Why?

Many reasons: crime, fear, schools. Chicago’s school system used to be considered one of the worst. Reforms improved it. Scores went up. Diplomas have more value. Some neighborhoods still lag, though. That’s why diverse newsrooms matter—you hear what communities are really concerned about.

How is New York different from Chicago?

Faster pace. Unique energy. I grew up there; we still visit yearly. In a disaster, New York is the place to be—New Yorkers see the problem and say, “Okay, let’s deal with it.”

Do you have an example?

During the big blackout in the 70s, traffic was snarled. Two guys drinking beer on folding chairs watched it, then put down their beers, walked into the street, and started directing traffic until everything flowed again. Classic New York.

It’s also dirty—because no alleys. Chicago is cleaner thanks to alleys.

Did you see looting during the blackout?

Yes. Opportunistic. Police couldn’t be everywhere. I was a news writer then. Hard-wired phones still worked. I walked miles to get to work. All hands on deck.

How did you end up coming here from New York?

Combination of things. I married someone going to law school in Washington. I moved there. Met people at CBS who pointed me to the AP. I worked there.

Years later, there was a prison riot at Sing Sing. Our reporter had been on the air nonstop. They sent me to relieve him. When I got back, Joe Durso—now news director at WBBM—had heard my coverage. He flew me out, showed me the station, and offered me a job. I accepted.

It really worked out for you—you have one of the coveted jobs.

It is fun. Mike Flannery once reacted to someone saying they should cover less crime and politics by saying, “This is the Vatican of politics.” Perfect description.

Chicago politics is rich, intense, and endlessly interesting. Working with reporters like Fran Spielman and Bill Cameron is a joy. It becomes a family.

How do you interview people you disagree with? Or people you think are corrupt?

That’s the job. You challenge facts without yelling. If someone claims massive voter fraud, I’ll point out that audits found almost none and ask where they got their information. If they say they’re “just hearing it,” that speaks for itself.

You don’t assume everyone enters politics for bad reasons. Most think they’re doing good.

What about corruption—ghost payrollers, mysterious jobs?

Lobbyists exist, but that’s not the same as elected officials. Some officials enter expecting riches, but most don’t get rich. Most intend to do good. The system is complicated. Politics is three-dimensional chess—more about power than money.

Was Mel basically preferring corruption?

He was part of a system that thrived on it. To get things for his ward, he had to work within that system. He openly talked about the old days—stuffing ballot boxes, job patronage. For him it was about getting jobs for “our guys.” Jobs fed families. Families sent kids to school.

Is it true dead people used to vote in Chicago?

Yes. Fewer now. Vote stealing absolutely happened, but modern systems make it much harder.

So Chicago is becoming Mayberry?

Never. Chicago will never be Mayberry and wouldn’t want to be. Cities like Chicago thrive on being tough, elbows-out places. People move to places like Kane County thinking they’re escaping the world, but the world follows you. New problems, new strengths, new communities.

Do you think things have gotten worse culturally?

It ebbs and flows. There’s incredible good—people helping strangers. But also bad—like people using the N-word in what they think is polite conversation. Politics in recent years made some people think bullying equals free speech. That part is worse.

But the potential for good is always there.

Can you give an example of hearing the N-word in “polite” conversation?

Yes. I was covering a barricade situation in Berwyn. My phone wasn’t working. A woman standing next to me said I could use her phone inside her house. She was very kind. I filed reports from her living room.

As people came home from work, one neighbor asked what was happening. The woman said, very casually, “A couple of n——s are holed up in that house.” I was standing right next to her. She didn’t realize she’d said anything offensive. For some people, that word is simply part of their vocabulary. Sadder than when it’s said in anger.

How do you handle situations like that?

It happens rarely now. But if it’s direct, I don’t back down. I tell people to stop. This stuff still occurs—in city departments, in politics. Some people justify it by saying, “Free speech—we can say what we want.”

What makes a good reporter?

Listening. Really listening. Not planning your next question while they talk. I always have a list of questions, but often the real story comes from something unexpected they say.

Writing is vital. You’re explaining the world to people. You should always be learning.

How did you learn to write well?

Good teachers—hard-nosed ones—in English class and journalism school.

What about being on TV?

I appear occasionally, usually on Channel 11’s “Week in Review.” It used to scare me; now it’s fine. TV requires different skills. You’re self-conscious about how you look, where you’re looking, how long you pause. I bring notes for names and numbers.

What advice do you have for people who want to do what you do?

Internships—wherever you can get them. And get a job doing the kind of work you actually want to do. If you want to be a reporter, get a reporter job. If you can’t get one in Chicago, go to Peoria or anywhere else, learn the craft, do it well. Then you can come back—or you might end up somewhere unexpected, like L.A. on TV.

Do the thing you want to do. Get good at it. Let that take you to the next step.

1.01.2026

Got the flu and reflected

I've been getting flu shots for like 15 years and did not get the flu until mid-December. It happened at the perfect time because my break had just started, and a project management class I was taking had just ended. Because it was a credit class, we had exams and a huge term paper due. At times it felt like a part-time job because achieving an A required a lot of work. A retired person who'd had a very successful career told me I shouldn't worry about getting an A, but I like to do the best job possible and then list it on LinkedIn :p

My temp reached 102, and I couldn't do anything other than wait it out. I spent four days lying around inside, and was ecstatic to emerge on day 5. Being too sick to do anything made me realize more than ever that I definitely do not like spending so much time at home and like to be out in the world, because as I've said before, I am not an introvert. I would probably have a much easier time living in modern society as an introvert because wanting to talk to people is almost counter-cultural at this point. 

And wanting to talk to people about anything is especially seen as weird. I've met people who use superficiality to hide something, like their real motives, their real background, or their misery. Other times a mere comment or question can send someone scurrying to their phone, and people also have earbuds in at all times to avoid any interaction IRL. Even just talking about the weather causes them to retreat.

I did a search online and found this long, thoughtful post about socialization and avoidance: texting allows control that real-life interactions don't allow because you can't undo, delay, or edit what you say. Headphones are used as a kind of "emotional shield...[to] feel protected, invisible, or unreachable," and phones offer similar protection. 

Sitting around so much made me realize that I really like people and want to connect with people, even with just a brief conversation in a store or wherever. It's great when I meet similar people, and it's like a buzzkill when I don't. Usually I don't dwell on a negative or anti-social interaction, but the couch made me think too much about it, which is why I was so glad to get outside eventually. Just seeing cute dogs was better than isolation! 

Another thing I thought about while on the couch all day is the value of good workplaces. I kept rehashing messed-up workplaces I worked in and how I never want to be exposed to such bullying, ostracizing, or unfairness again. Right now my work situation is really good, and I don't want to mess up my life by being a lone ranger trying to survive another toxic place. I refuse to do that anymore, and my great health has proven that I made the right decision to avoid bad people and harmful environments. I won't even tolerate dysfunctional or mean people in my personal life, and it's proven to be an effective strategy because 2025 was one of my best years ever, and I'm the healthiest I've ever been.

What's good about being really sick is that you can make decisions to reset. I probably thought too much and the thoughts at times were unproductive, just swirling around without a resolution. It's probably because I wasn't socializing, so I had pent-up energy that was ending up in dead ends. When I started interacting with the world again, I entered wiser and really appreciative of freedom and health. Looking forward to a good 2026!

I was planning on posting this before 2025 ended, but now it's 2026...Happy New Year!

11.11.2025

Letting go of the dark ball of thoughts

There's a dark ball that gets tangled in its own strings. 

Trying to understand by stepping away from it.

As you're stepping away, the strings become untangled. 

The meaning is clear.

No good, don't go back.

11.09.2025

Yes, we can use AI to translate but...

I've been talking to some folks about my obsession with translating tweets. One person said they can translate anything online via Google. Yes, that's true. We can plug in words or entire websites, which can then be instantly translated. That's the biggest change since I started this blog, and since I got paid for translating many years ago.

But the difference is the cultural translation and grasping the sense of words and phrases. If I want a quick translation of a block of text to get the gist or more information, then I can do it. But if I want to think about what a word would mean in American English, then I would think about how American writers would phrase it. 

I don't just look up words, but I also think about our culture. Would we passively back into a description if we wanted to convey strength, ingenuity, independence, even if the source language is not as direct? And why would we avoid contractions?

For instance, I would say 体調管理大丈夫かな is "How've you been feeling?" instead of "Are you managing your health well?" because かな implies a casual wondering, including using a contraction.

There's also the use of katakana instead of kanji or hiragana, which makes the words sound more emphatic or casual or current, depending on the context. 

And for "Virologe warnt wegen Vogelgrippe vor möglicher neuer Pandemie," I would say, "Virologist warns of a possible new bird flu pandemic" instead of "Virologist warns of possible new pandemic due to bird flu," because while the translation is technically correct, an English headline would be more pithy. 

If someone wants to just get info and move on, great. But if someone wants to communicate the essence or localize the meaning, then a human matters. 

p.s. the e-book version of my debut novel is still at Amazon, and the price for the print version has been reduced: buy at the Eckhartz Press site.

10.22.2025

I went to Germany

For the first time in a couple decades, I took a trip abroad. The only foreign country I've gone to since I went to Brazil in the early 21st century is Canada, which I've only driven to (Chicago to Toronto is doable). It was such an incredibly fantastic trip, I didn't write or post anything about it while I was there. I was totally immersed in every single detail around me. The minute I got on the train from the airport, I was totally wrapped up in everything I saw and experienced; I was truly excited for the first time in I don't know how long.

I went there with Easy German, which has a relationship with GLS, where I studied German three hours a day, five days a week for two weeks. I've always wanted to study a language abroad, and I finally got to do it! What's lame is that out of the 60 people in the Easy German group, I had the worst German. I got into an A2.2 class (barely squeaking by the minimum requirement of A2 level for the program), which was fantastic for me. The level was a bit difficult but manageable, and the teachers were great. They were all native speakers (which I require for my language-learning; I would've changed classes if they weren't), and while they weren't highly trained teachers, they had that necessary quality for me: they liked people. The 59 other people in the program were high B1/B2-C2 and spoke German with each other all the time. When we had activities, there was a lot of German going on. 

For instance, when we took a trip to the Reichstag dome, I thought we were just going to go in, look at the amazing view, and leave. So I got pretty nervous when the leaders gave a lecture about the German political system. I tried to follow but couldn't grasp the gist, so I just looked around, at the river and birds, people-watching and enjoying the sun, while I was realizing that studying a few languages simultaneously has watered down my progress in anything :p 

I thought the lecture would be it, but they broke us up into small groups to discuss politics, and gave us conversation topics. I was with a couple of guys who were pretty fluent, and I had no idea what they were talking about because the conversation was intellectual and too complex for moi. I just enjoyed the nice weather and tried to comprehend what they were saying.

A lot of people say that it's hard to learn German in Berlin because everybody speaks English, and I learned that English is the lingua franca of the world (which is ironic to use a French phrase to talk about English in that way). No matter where people were from, they spoke English. Even though it's the dominant language in the U.S., I had no idea that it's the main way that people from different countries communicate with each other throughout the world. Sometimes I think it's almost downplayed where I live because people can avoid using English for their entire lives, if they want, and there's no pressure to learn it. 

Amazingly, I spoke German in Berlin with the residents, even though people in my program who were excellent in it said that they had a hard time avoiding using English. For instance, if I went to a store or whatever, they might speak some English, but I would just keep speaking German like I knew what was going on. Then they would stay with me in German even though my German wasn't great. But I think it was my attitude, like I belonged there or something. I did this repeatedly throughout my trip and it was definitely what I went there for, so I achieved what I wanted.

At one point, however, my plan backfired when a fluent German-speaking woman from Brazil asked me a question at a restaurant and I couldn't totally comprehend what she was saying, so we switched to English and talked about a lot of stuff. I wouldn't have been able to stay with such a deep conversation in German anyway, so it worked out. But I guess I was navigating everything so confidently she thought I was a German ace. In other situations, I would just tell people "Ich lerne Deutsch" after subjecting them to my weak German, and they'd smile and sometimes would say that my German is really good. That's probably because I grasped what they were saying without looking like I was trying; the key perhaps was quick, confident communication instead of perfect grammar.

Best of all, I spoke Spanish, French, and Japanese in Berlin. In fact, I spoke more Japanese in Germany than I do at home, and Japanese people had no problem with me speaking with them; they were totally open and cool. Turns out there's a Japanese community in Berlin, and I even went to a Japanese grocery store. In Leipzig, I heard a couple of women speaking Japanese, talking about some shirts at a museum. I asked them in Japanese if they were from Japan, and I ended up chatting with one of them. That doesn't happen where I live; if I ask someone if they're from Japan, they'll say yes, and switch to English or not talk to me. But the Japanese people I met in Germany were really friendly and didn't care if I was speaking Japanese; we had to speak either poor German or better Japanese, and I chose the latter. 

The French experience was surprising: I was in a courtyard where Japanese, German, and other people were selling food. I spoke Japanese to one person, walked to a booth run by a French woman, and we started speaking German. Then she asked me if I spoke French, and I said a little, so we switched to French! We spoke for a bit, and while I could totally understand what she was saying but wasn't fluent, she didn't care because we were communicating. And she didn't even ask nor care about any English at all. 

I also spoke some Spanish, ironically at GLS, and met some wonderful people from Latin America in the Easy German group who only spoke German with me and each other. One day a group of us, led by Easy German's Manuel, went to Dresden, and I spoke German for 10 hours! Because the Latin American people I'd met were totally friendly and communicative, I just kept talking, even though I had to keep stopping to ask them to correct me or help me with my paltry German vocabulary. 

And I spoke with other people in German as well. But on the train back to Berlin, I decided to give German a break, and started speaking English with a British person because she was speaking English with another Brit (both of whom spoke fluent German btw). As we were talking about British TV, Manuel yelled from another seat, "Sprechen nur Deutsch!" So I proceeded to switch from my perfect English to bad German, while the Brit responded in her rapid-fire perfect German. Because I was already excited to be with so many cool people while learning another language (instead of toiling alone as I've done for years), I walked to another seat, which was near Manuel, and spoke with an American in German for a while. Her German was awesome because she's been to Germany often and was good about consistently studying it in the U.S. So there I was, speaking bad German and trying to get my ideas across as Manuel sat across the aisle, probably feeling pity for moi as I managed to butcher his language (plus he's aced Spanish and English, so he's very comfortably trilingual).

The next day I woke up with a sore throat and ended up getting sick. That's what 10 hours of German will do to you, especially if you're not fluent in it! But at least I tried. I took advantage of every opportunity to speak German in Germany, whether I was studying in Berlin or traveling to Leipzig and Erfurt. There aren't a lot of Americans in those cities, so I was lucky, but at the same time some people would speak English, probably because they don't get many chances to use what they've learned.

When I went to Germany, my goal was to learn enough German to travel and get around, and to know enough to chat with people, and I attained it! I even had some more complicated conversations in German, and I don't think people knew that I didn't grasp everything, but that's fine--I got to do what I've wanted to do for years: spend a month in another country learning a language and applying it during my stay.

When I got back, I thought I would just focus on German because I was made acutely aware of my deficiencies, but I'm really into French, Spanish, and Japanese, and have been juggling all those because just focusing on one language seems limiting. Of course, if I had to live in Germany I would do everything to become fluent and educated, but while I have a choice, I'll stay with the multilingual pursuits. I've also resumed translating stuff on Twitter/X, and it's become sort of an obsession, or at least a passion, and I'm just really happy to have time in my life for languages again. Es macht Spaß! Und danke Deutschland! 🇩🇪

Reichstag Building Dome
Reichstag Dome with some people from the group (who were German aces)


German teacher - trilingual
One of my German teachers: native speaker from Berlin who speaks fluent Portuguese and English!

p.s. the e-book version of my debut novel is still at Amazon, and the price for the print version has been reduced: buy at the Eckhartz Press site.

8.22.2025

I'm not a loner

A few days ago, I had the best day because I interacted with cool people all day. First, I went to an online writing group with friendly people. Then I went to an online training by someone who works with people, who actually likes people (which I've written about before): he always starts the meetings by acknowledging every person in the "room," then as he lectures, he often pauses for questions and comments, and looks at the chat as well. He speaks in a warm, knowledgeable, communicative way; even though it's online, I feel like I'm in a supportive offline environment. 

Then, after I texted back and forth with a coworker/friend of mine, we ended up having an hour-plus phone call. She's one of those rare people who not only likes people, but helps people and is honest; she's a sincere, accepting person, sans superficiality. After that, a friend from the online writing group told me that she was dining at a restaurant across the street, so we went out for coffee in an upscale milieu on the Mag Mile and talked for a while. When she caught her bus back home, I walked through the Gold Coast and called another friend, who I talked to for over an hour. He also gave me some really good advice for my livestream. I had a pretty weird/toxic conversation with someone that night, but it was offset by having a drink with yet another friend at a place in River North, where we met the manager of a steak restaurant that we're definitely going to try out; she even told us to contact her before we go.

So the day was fantastic, and for an extrovert like me, all days should be like this. This is what energizes people with my personality type, rather than sitting silently in front a computer. And I didn't just socialize, but I socialized with decent people who like people. That's the key. (The reason why I'm mentioning extroversion is because I've written about faking introversion before, and how the world seems to be constructed for introverts.) 

So what does this all have to do with the title? Well I've obviously demonstrated that I am not a loner, but also, this is in response to a belittling person I met at a baby shower a while ago. When I think of people who are on the level, I contrast it with people who aren't. And I had such an experience at that baby shower. I knew no one but the expectant mother, so no matter where I sat, I had to strike up a conversation, or else I'd sit there in silence. I was kicked out of the family table, even though I'd been talking to the grandmother, so I went to another table, where I sat next to a religious, smug woman who spoke disparagingly about the people there with her daughter, in addition to gossiping about people who weren't there.

I made huge mistake that has been a cautionary tale ever since. I talked to her because I'm not introverted, thinking that she'd be cool or at least gracious since she was proud of being religious, and what I got were questions and accusations about my lifestyle. I was also going through some heavy stuff due to grief and increased responsibilities, so my life wasn't all happy and social and busy according to a church-lady's expectations. She was appalled that I didn't have kids, and I think she had 5, and had already moved from the city to the burbs. For some reason, I felt like I wanted to keep talking to her, because, again, I'm not a wallflower, but I should've just changed tables, because it never got any better. We were talking about other stuff, and then she said reproachingly, "So you're a loner." I was like, no, but she didn't believe me, so I assumed it probably appeared that way to her because I didn't have her kind of lifestyle. She was so judgmental and not encouraging, even after I told her about the loss I'd experienced, I felt even more deflated, but I didn't want to tell her off or be rude; I just concluded that she is into righteousness by appearance only.

But I'm not making the assumption that religiosity leads to ostracism. I had an incredible conversation today with a religious person that lasted for more than a couple of hours, where we had downtime while volunteering. Today's person clearly likes people and connecting with people. The other person doesn't. So it matters. Just filling time with people doesn't.

p.s. the e-book version of my debut novel is still at Amazon, and the price for the print version has been reduced: buy at the Eckhartz Press site.

8.18.2025

What FOMO was like before the Internet

On Saturday night, I had no plans, but I didn't care. I went out the day and night before, which was fine. Then I had an in-person meeting yesterday, so I got enough social interaction over the weekend. Maybe I would've wanted more in the past, but it was enough for me. It's gotten easier for me, but for for some people, not going out is rough. And it's made worse during the digital age; people get FOMO if they see pictures and reels on social media. But before the Internet, it wasn't the same.

The analog version of FOMO happened if you heard about people doing things, or they told you about it, or you talked on the phone about it. Or you could get FOMO by just sitting around, imagining what other people were doing. They could be doing nothing just like you, but if you perceived that they were out somewhere without you, then you could get FOMO. Teens could spiral in their own way and worry about it, but they could get distracted or talk to a friend on the phone (talking into a handset that was connected to a wall via a cord), or do something to get their mind off it. There were lots of things to do, and no one else had the means to show you what they were doing, so you couldn't compare yourself. 

It must be really tough for teens when they see pictures and videos of other people having fun. Even professionals get envious and question their own lifestyles when they look at LinkedIn, or see posts on Instagram and Fakebook. People cope by coming up with strategies to stay away from social media, or they try to stay strong as they scroll. BI (Before the Internet), there was less neuroticism about what other people were doing, and the world wasn't magnified around you. 


retro phone

p.s. the e-book version of my debut novel is still at Amazon, and the price for the print version has been reduced: buy at the Eckhartz Press site.