Gloomy Boomies

Ahem, as I was saying...
Yesterday I was distracted by the YouTubes as I sat down to write about an article on baby boomers and happiness that I saw in the Kansas City Star. Today, I'll stay more on point.
The story, written by Amy Sheridan, attracted my attention because of the headline: Come on, baby boomers, get happy.
Sheridan marvels that the so-called Baby Boom generation has a gloomier outlook on life than other generations, as measured by the Pew Research Center. What followed was the newspaper equivalent of a hearty slap on the back and a "Smile, why dontcha?!"
Her words: "Happiness and satisfaction can be yours today, right now. All you have to do is decide to be happy." Then she peppered us with the usual claptrap from the happiness industry. Learn to laugh at yourself. Treat yourself to fun clothes. Get involved!
I've been reading this stuff from so-called happiness experts for months now. Are others benefiting from it? Because it doesn't help me a bit. It's a little like the doctor who tells you to lose weight after you've been trying and trying, but doesn't offer any ideas on how. Or the financial adviser who says "You don't have enough income. You need to make more money."
So I looked up the Pew Study and found:
A) That it was taken in early 2008, a few months before the big economic panic.
B) That despite our supposedly high incomes, we are worried about finances.
C) That we've been gloomy since our 20s and that the folks at Pew seemed genuinely puzzled by it all.
All I can say is that if baby boomers were more worried than the rest of the population back before even Bear Stearns folded, then that proves we're smart. We totally called it.
And we've been reading other indicators right as well. Maybe more younger people are getting laid off, but don't tell me we shouldn't worry until we see who gets hired back. A lot of people in their 50s have dependents still at home, mortgages, elderly parents and a long life ahead of them. And they're spending more time out of work. Each year they spend unemployed makes them one year older and less hireable, because of the ageism that is rampant in this country. (If you're still unclear, read this letter from the Kansas City Star.)
The Pew researchers spent some ink wondering why a generation that supposedly has had it so soft would have such a low expectations. I'd like to take a crack at that one, too.
The 60s weren't only hard on the "greatest generation." They were hard on us, too. Just as we were reaching adulthood, our president lied, cheated and resigned. Our older brothers were dying in a murky war we didn't understand. People were screaming at each other over race. And we knew the world expected no less than that we'd somehow top the feat of putting a man on the moon.
And after the 60s? There hasn't been a single year that our generation wasn't blamed for something. The coming Social Security fund crisis. The increase in household debt. The bubble in home prices. Low productivity. Mouthy latchkey kids. Loose morals and teen pregnancy. Coarsening of the culture. All the Baby Boom's fault.
Given all that, I'd say gloominess is a perfectly reasonable reaction.

There's more that bothers me about this piece, though. It's the source. The Star's tag line mentions that Amy Sheridan is the founder of The Baby Boom Network, an on-line group dedicated to the well-being of this generation.
So I looked up the web site. What the Star's tag line failed to include is that Sheridan is also selling us something. A book, (on stress-free aging) an online course on optimism and of course, her services as a presenter and motivational speaker. Her "articles" are just a way to draw in business. Here's a quote from one of those "article" ostensibly about baby boomer statistics:
"Your goal is to be aware that there are many different options open to you and that you should take advantage of the services and products specifically being developed for you." (italics mine)
This is sneaky, very sneaky, because it so subtly crosses the line between a genuine news story and an ad. It's an article of dubious value in the space usually reserved for features, in the same font and headline style as FYI's other features. But it's written by someone trying to draw in customers.
Here's why this is a bad thing. Let's say you're a reporter and your father owns a large department store in town. And you want to write a story about something department-store related, say, pricing policies. No matter how fair you are or promise to be, most papers will not let you do it. It creates a doubt in readers' minds. You could be soft on your dad's store. You could be trying to drum up business. Doesn't matter if it's true. The doubt is all that matters.
Exactly the same thing is going on with Sheridan's piece. This is ethically wrong and I'm very disappointed in the Star for running it.