Bush Administration Approves Int'l PR Post

As of July 29th, one of President Bush's key confidantes and public relations experts, Karen Hughes, became the new State Department undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs, to improve the U.S. image abroad.
At her confirmation hearing, Hughes told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee she would ask for help from American entertainment personalities to try and improve the U.S. image overseas. According to "The Crisis Counselor" source, Hughes told the committee that the U.S. must "improve our rapid response" to "confront hateful propoganda, dispel dangerous myths and get out of the truth" about U.S. efforts to improve conditions abroad.

There's a basic principle in persuasion theory: Reputation and Image is somewhat/very much based on reality. Can Karen Hughes convince other societies, cultures, governments, that U.S. policy is in their best interests too? When in reality there seems to be great disagreement about whether the U.S. acts in it's own interests or does actually take into account other countries interests, too.

Promotional stategies, whether that is news reports, targeted mailings, television and print advertising, or special events, can't perform miracles. Hughes has a big task in changing perceptions if we don't also change some of the reality of our U.S. governemnt policy regarding how we treat prisoners, work with the United Nations, or gain support to deal with Iraq.

No matter what we do, there will be critics of U.S. policy, for sure. The Bush Administration will never convince 100% of the international critics. However, it seems this administration is particulary rigid in its diplomatic perspective, even with Condi Rice, at the helm. Flexibility is good for any relationship, even international ones.

What would you do if you were Karen Hughes?

Okay, who uses the Internet for social networking?

Just curious...who uses the Internet for social networking? I don't mean online dating--although there's nothing wrong with that and I understand that it's very popular. I'm referring to the many ways of looking up old friends and making new ones. Of course there's always the Google approach to try to locate someone. Or perhaps you've used Yahoo's People Search to track down a high school friend. For the more daring, how about Friendster, MySpace, Orkut, or LinkedIn? Apparently a website called Facebook is garnering a lot of attention on many college campuses...but as you might suspect CSU-Pueblo is a bit behind the curve on that one. My question is...do you use these social networking tools, and if so, how important are they to help you stay in touch with people you know? Perhaps more importantly, do they help you to locate and establish relationships with people of shared interests?

Will journalism professors become 'endangered species'?

In the summer 2005 issue of Wilson Quarterly, reader Keith R. Wood of Salt Lake City (a one-time TV news director) bemoans the current state of journalism training in a letter to the editor. Wood argues that today's journalists are "generally taught by people whose main qualification is a journalism degree" and because of this journalists have become "high-tech migrant laborers" who are "interested primarily in moving to the next station or paper." Gone are the days when journalists worked their way up at the local paper from "foot-in-the-door jobs," Wood says.

In his letter, Wood sees the recruiting of online journalists and bloggers as a promising step in developing more community-invested journalists: "Some paper will see the potential in having a 'farm' of credentialed bloggers working as stringers for the online version of the paper, with the best of them working in the print edition beside traditional reporters." He concludes: "When that day arrives, journalism professors will become an endangered species."

Is this a logical scenario? What role might future journalism educators play if blogging becomes the new training ground for professional journalists? Could journalism educators help play a role in granting "credentials" to these bloggers?

Being a reporter is a complicated matter.

Judy Miller of the NYT has been thrown in a cage because she would not cough up her source. Will this have a chilling effect on government whistle blowers? Are we ready for a national shield law? Was the court simply asking Miller to identify a criminal?

Is less more?

In the latest issue of The Masthead, the quarterly journal of the National Conference of Editorial Writers, Visalia Times-Delta opinion page editor Paul Hurley says his paper now directs columnists to make their points succinctly in 450 words, not the traditional 700-800 words that serve as the standard length for columnists at most papers.

The word-tightening mandate, Hurley says, is designed to attract younger, hipper, more time-conscious readers. So, like the rest of the paper, the traditionally gray editoria pages must use "graphics, photos, lists, digests and ... yes, shorter reads" in presenting the commentary of the day.

"Do we really want to write only for the academics and policy makers?" Hurley asks.

And it's a good question.

Hurley concludes his 439-word take on the topic with: "Less is more (readers)."

Is it?

Will PBS' Alleged Liberal Bias Impact its Federal Funding?

Public television is finding itself on the hotseat for programming that many say has a liberal bias, anti-Bush administration perspective. Whether it's Bill Moyers' obvious liberal commentary about the Irag war, Buster's visits to lesbian parents, or News Hour coverage, Republicans in Washington are speaking out.

Public television is funded by the Corporation for Public Television (CPB) which was created in 1967 by Congress to provide "objectivity and balance in all programs...of a controversial nature." The intent behind the act was to bring more intellectual programming to television to raise it out of its "vaste wasteland" that Newton Minnow talked about. Government leaders were concerned that commercial broadcast television wasn't exactly educating the public on the important issues, during Captain Kangaroo, the Brady Bunch, or Hee Haw.

This year, the CPB will provide $387 million to PBS and NPR to assist with programming. The CPB annual government payment to PBS contributes to about 15% each year of the PBS budget.
Such government funding is causing great concern to the chairman of the CPB, Kenneth Tomlinson, a Bush appointee, who has created the positions of two "ombudsmen", one a conservative and one a liberal. Their charge is to monitor PBS for liberal content. Tomlinson claims in an article on the topic in the May 23rd Washington Post, that "liberalism is too prominent on public TV...while conservative ideas are marginalized."

PBS' concern is that assigning content monitors for liberal bias directly impacts the 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech. They argue that government should not be monitoring television for its content in any form. An internal PBS memo identified the effort as "government encroachment on and supervision of program content..." Public television advocates say that programming decisions should be made at the local community level.

Tomlinson argues that PBS has been getting away with a liberal bias for too long and the ombudsmen will help provide a more balanced political perspective between liberal and conservative views.

1st Amendment advocates say that no government authority should be monitoring television programming beyond the FCC rules of indecency and obscenity, which are difficult enough to identify, let alone identify political bias. If we can't all agree on what is indecent when the government decides to fine broadcasters, how will these two ombudsmen agree on political perspectives?

And even if they did, what authority do they have over public television to direct its content?

Some agreeing with Tomlinson suggest that government should just get out of public television funding altogether. Spend that $387 million on something else. Public television advocates will say without that $387 million, viewers will lose public television because it can't be solely supported by contributions. (remember, advertising isn't allowed, only underwriting)

Does public televison have a liberal bias? Is its programming not "objective and balanced" as the act which created it requires?
Should the government continue to fund public television? Would a democrat in the White House consider cutting funding for public television? Is Tomlinson's concern more about not being able to promote a Republican agenda?

Another black eye for the news media

Newsweek’s retraction of their story alleging prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay raises new questions about credibility of the press and the use of unnamed sources. This time 14 lives were lost because of a lapse of judgment. From Jayson Blair to Jack Kelley to CBS and now Newsweek, journalism is under fire for not getting it right. The erosion of trust in the media continues to grow as new scandals come to light. A recent survey reported in Editor & Publisher says that 53% of the American public believes that stories with unnamed sources should not be published at all. For those of us who remember Watergate, that is a frightening statistic. However, recent history has revealed abuses of the practice of using unnamed sources…with little “ends” to justify the “means.” In response, major news operations are currently rewriting the rules for unnamed sources in an attempt to restore credibility. Is it too little too late? What do you think?

How long will Nightline last without Ted Koppel?

Ted Koppel recently announced that he will leave Nightline in December when his contact expires.

Although ABC News executives say they plan to continue the late-night news program, how long will Nightline survive in the post-Koppel era? Will ABC continue its commitment to news programming as an alternative to Leno and Lettermen? What do you think ABC will do?

See related link: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=630032

Two, Two, Two Leads in One

The Associated Press recently announced that it would start offering two leads for many news stories.

AP will now provide the traditional straight news leads containing the main facts of the story along with the optional lead, which AP described as "an alternative approach that attempts to draw in the reader through imagery, narrative devices, perspective or other creative means."

An article in Editor & Publisher quoted AP officials as saying the move was designed in part to provide readers with a "fresh" take on the news "so they will want to pick up the newspaper and read a story, even though the facts have been splashed all over the Web and widely broadcast."

According to the AP officials, the optional leads will only be available for print.

Will this move push print newspapers further into becoming strictly feature-oriented publications, perhaps attracting more subscribers from the sometimes-elusive younger demographic? Or is this just the latest attempt to try to revive a dying print newspaper industry?


Related link:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000844185

Mary Parker Follett as a Blogger

It occurred to me sometime back that Mary Parker Follett, the turn-of-the-(20th)-century management maven, author, and activist would make a delightful blogger. Follett (1868-1933), whose work was essentially ignored by a number of organizational theorists in her day, finally gained attention in the 1950s when Peter Drucker called her his "guru". Today, her writings are frequently studied in business schools, in community education, and among organizational communicators for their wisdom and managerial philosophy. That said, Follett was a frequent essayist, speaker, and commentator too. She was a student of organizations and business, certainly, but she also found time to read extensively in education, politics, sociology, ethics, world affairs, psychology, and the arts. Some say she is best known for her work in community development and the idea of community centers in particular. And it is this notion of community that focuses my point.

Were she alive today, I think Follett would be blogger in addition to a speaker, essayist, and scholar. She would find the essence of a weblog both fascinating and essential to developing a community within a global environment. In her article, "Community is a Process," written in 1919, Follett argues that: "...community is a creative process. It is creative because it is a process of integrating....The creative power of the individual appears not when one 'wish dominates others, but when all 'wishes' unite in a working whole....What then is the law of community? From biology, from psychology, from our observation of social groups, we see that community is that intermingling which evokes creative power....As the process of community creates personality and will, freedom appears."

I should like to think that Follett would see the weblog as a community, as a creative process that through individuals creates a whole, and an interchange that strengthens and unifies when other forms of collectivity fails. While Follett expands on larger issues than the essence of community, she always seems to relate it to freedom and the "practice of community."

Is blogging a practice of community?

We should all look so good after serving time

Did Newsweek mislead the public with its recent cover photo illustration of Martha Stewart?

The magazine identified the cover -- which shows a beaming Stewart emerging from gold curtains looking slender and happy -- as a photo illustration on page 3. In a March 2 interview on National Public Radio, Lynn Staley, assistant managing editor for Newsweek, explained that the photo illustration included Martha Stewart’s head placed atop a model’s body. Staley said the image was designed to depict Martha’s emergence from prison, looking ahead to what Martha’s future might be. She said it was not Newsweek’s intention to deceive. But does this photo illustration cross the line of deception? Should Newsweek have identified the image as a photo illustration on the cover rather than on page 3? Does it really matter in this day and age of complex digital enhancement capability?

See related links:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7038081/site/newsweek/
and
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4520166

Eulogy for a master wordsmith

Hunter's dead. His ashes have been blown from a cannon across his sprawling ranch outside of Aspen. Just thought I'd post my favorite Hunter S. Thompson quote, in honor of one of the 20th Century's most-inspired voices.
Hope you'll leave yours, too:

"The music businessis a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."

Protection for Churchill?

No matter what you think about Ward Churchill, any discussion about his right to say what he has said will likely raise the topics of freedom of speech, academic freedom, and the role of tenure for university professors. But first, a little background. In 1991 Churchill, with only a Masters degree and bypassing the normal 6-year probationary process, was promoted from lecturer to Assistant Professor with tenure within the Communication department at CU Boulder. From there he moved on to the Ethnic Studies department where he was promoted to Full Professor in 1997.

As you probably know, an essay published shortly after 9/11, but which only recently came to the attention of the public, has many calling for Churchill’s dismissal from his position on the faculty at CU. The first question that may come to mind is whether Churchill’s speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. All of us who work in or along side the media should be concerned about legitimate 1st Amendment claims--but this is not one of them. Churchill’s constitutional right to say what he wants about victims of 9/11 is clear. However, his right to employment (at a comfortable $94K) is not guaranteed by the same. Just ask any number of federal, state, and local officials and employees who have been dismissed for spoken offenses much less severe than Churchill’s.

However, while not a 1st Amendment issue, Churchill’s speech is afforded an additional level of protection under the notion of academic freedom. A key component of university tenure systems, academic freedom ensures that unpopular ideas and theories will not be dismissed for any reason other than academic merit. If you can make a case that your position has even a chance of being supportable, you can continue to research, publish, and propagate it in the classroom. So while you might take offense that Churchill is blaming the victims of 9/11 for their own deaths, the possibility that the unjust economic system perpetrated by Wall Street was to blame for the tragedy cannot be easily disproved or dismissed. In a similar light, Harvard University president Lawrence H. Summers’ hypothesis that innate ability differences between men and women may be partly to blame for the under representation of women in the upper echelons of science education is controversial, even highly offensive to many, but far from disproved.

So what exactly then are the limits of protection afforded by academic freedom? Even tenured professors are not immune from all repercussions of their speech. According to the Denver Post, a tenured professor at CU can be dismissed for, “incompetence, neglect of duty, insubordination, conviction of a felony or any offense involving moral turpitude, sexual harassment or any conduct falling below minimum standards of professional integrity.” Ironically, it may be the sudden attention focused on Churchill’s inflammatory essay that may in fact uncover behavior leading to his dismissal. For example, one thing that makes Churchill’s career at CU so interesting is the fact that he was hired, in-part, because of his alleged Native American heritage…which we’ve now come to find was fabricated by Churchill. Many years prior to his promotion the Boulder Camera and the Rocky Mountain News questioned the veracity of Churchill’s claim to be Native American. Even the American Indian Movement has claimed for many years that Churchill has, “fraudulently represented himself as an Indian.” In addition, the accusation by Churchill that the US Army perpetrated genocide against American Indians by distributing small-pox laden blankets appears to be a fabrication as well. Thomas Brown, an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Lamar University has published an essay critical of Churchill’s scholarship. Brown concludes, “it is difficult to conceive of a social scientist committing a more egregious violation.” Other professors have accused Churchill of plagiarism and misrepresentation.

The academic review committee at CU will issue their report in two weeks. But in the mean time, what do you think?

Universal Service Fund

President Bush has asked for $304.1 million for the FCC during fiscal 2006. Part of the budget includes a $3.2 million cost center to pay for an audit of the agency’s Universal Service Fund. The USF was originally set up to help subsidize telephone service for low income households. Today, a large chunk of the USF helps common carriers pay for the skyrocketing cost of telecommunication infrastructures. The fund is also providing relief for rural heath care providers, schools, and libraries.

Over the years the commission has received numerous complaints related to the USF. Complaints include allegations of “false claims, failure to comply with appropriate procurement regulations and laws, conflict of interest, forgery and securities related offenses.”

My wife and I pay over six dollars per month (into the USF) through our wireline agreement with Qwest and our PCS agreement with Sprint - that’s over $70 per year, almost $400 every five years.

Questions: Is it time to take it back? Should we be paying for telephone poles in rural America? Should we subsidize Native American families (lowest subscribership levels in the U.S) so they can have access to wirelines? Should we help local libraries provide internet access to the public? Is the USF working?