I'm struck by the relationship paradox between the breakneck pace of Western media culture and creativity. "Creativity is a gift," John Lennon once said, "it doesn't come through if the air is cluttered."

And in closing what was a terrific weekend writing conference for poets, fiction, non-fiction, stage and screen writers presented by New Letters, a point was borrowed from author Milan Kundera about "the secret bond between slowness and memory, and between speed and forgetting."

By contrast, I witness how producing original or mash-up digital shorts is as effortless to what's provocatively and arguably called (by Bolt CEO Andrew Cohen) today's" most creative generation since the Renaissance," as crayonizing my Nancy and Sluggo coloring book was to my generation.

A recent chat I had with a veteran TV producer confirmed that most kids -- including all three of my teenage stepkids -- with even a hint of self-expression, access to a mobile phone or digital camera and the Internet have basic competence in filmmaking by the time they are 10 or 12.

Contemporary life is fast and cluttered for most of us. Yet for most anyone 16 and under, there is no other reality. I'm curious to see how art continues to evolve and morph among millenials. And if a longing for slowness will eventually catch up.

The dialogue between the NYT's David Pogue and Scott Foval here coincided with an experience my 15 year-old step-daughter Chloe had with a substitute teacher in school that day.

The word "epiphany" had come up in class. What did "epiphany" mean?

The sub responded: "Epiphany is what, in business, we call an 'a-ha moment.' At my last company, we must not have had too many of those. Because the company was downsized. And that's why I'm here today."
She paused.
"I guess being a VP in a company wasn't so interesting anyway."

This struck me as an expression of someone in the grieving process.
Sometimes we say things that externalize our internal struggles.
Sometimes, that expression is even a news bulletin to ourselves.

So when I read the vehement frustrations of David Pogue, of whom I'm a big fan and regular reader, I heard grieving.

One column, 89 comments within 44 hours later, there's clearly something important here.

As a former journalist, former PR executive and current word of mouth/marketing practitioner, I deeply appreciate David's frustrations. Too many to address here, I would call attention to the fundamental common ground: that the final point expressed in David's column is actually the most important, and one shared by the majority of WOMM practitioners I respect most: "If Microsoft really wants to earn high marks from the public, it might want to consider earning them the old-fashioned way: By creating products people love." Right on, David.

Decades before the blogging phenom, the PR business has been about shaping public opinion using simple to sophisticated techniques about which the public was unaware.

After transitioning from journalism to PR in my naive and early 20's, I was shocked -- then saddened -- to learn that the first phase in the PR launch of many new, major pharma products is a months-long awareness campaign designed to fuel fears about a particular condition the product will treat. Classic problem-solution strategy. Outcomes proved good for the business of the pharma company. But, over time and over many perpetrators, spanning industry to politics, at what cost to public trust? The kinds of tactics and hidden agenda revealed in Pogue's column and the onslaught of 89 comments, are taking a toll. On trust, journalism and public opinion at large.

The larger takeaway here: we need to help each other channel our energies into making great products and doing the right thing for stakeholders because, in the long run, that's just better all around.