Media blind

Today, several journalists covering the Iraq War (including Seymour Hersh, the AP's Tony Castaneda, and Kevin Begos of the Winston-Salem Journal) told those attending an AP Managing Editors conference that the lack of security in Iraq has made it impossible for journalists to get -- and give us -- an accurate report of what is really happening anywhere in that country, especially among the Iraqis, outside the heavily fortified "Green Zone" of Baghdad.

If that's true, is there a way those journalists and the rest of us can use the Internet to find credible sources and accurate information that will give us what we need to assess this war and decide if we should continue to support it?

Pre-Packaged News Stories by Feds Are Now Identified

The U.S. Department of Education was in hot water earlier this year after it was determined they were secretly paying some editorial columnists to promote the Bush education agenda. In addition, the Bush administration came under fire for creating VNRs (video news releases) about public policy issues that were not being identified as coming from the Federal Government.
Fast forward to Oct. 20th, and we now have the "Prepackaged news Store Announcement Act of 2005" requiring any Federal agency to have a "clear notification" within the text or audio of a news story that the VNR was prepared or funded by the "United States Government."
Consumers read and watch prepackaged news stories all the time by way of news releases that are published in newspapers and VNRs which are broadcast on television. Confirming the source of a message should be a basic rule of any communicator, however some PR folks don't want the audience to know exactly who created the message. Regardless of which way you fall on whether the source should always be blatantly clear, the Federal Government should always identify itself on behalf of any message it creates with taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately because of the Department of Education's strategy to promote without full disclosure, we now have a FEDERAL LAW forcing government agencies to disclose.

Listenomics!

The October 10 issue of Advertising Age addresses a topic near and dear to the proverbial heart of 21st Century communicators--the Open Source Revolution. Sam Ebersole, our new media specialist and guest speaker at the Southern Colorado Press Club on October 12, used Bob Garfield's great front page piece as a starter for his timely and salient observations on the changes in new media and the communications revolution. Thank you, Sam!

Bob Garfield titled his piece "Listenomics" (www.adage.com) as he describes the critical changes in the Open Source Revolution--the Chaos Scenario--as marketers and advertisers strive to pull out of mainstream "old media" and move (incredibly slowly and painfully) toward the new reality for consumerism. Allowing that the "herd will be heard," Garfield examines the critical changes necessary for the advertising business to pull ahead, recognize (and corral) the collective wisdom of the masses and make the marketplace an interactive auction of exchanges that it once was.

Most marketers (and their scholarly counterparts) have long argued that marketing and the marketing communications that surround it are really a series of exchanges between buyer and seller, consumer and marketer. These exchanges begin and end with the customer, of course, but these exchanges keep the spiral of consumerism moving. If Garfield is right--and I encourage you to read his entire piece--he is really reverting to the very traditions of the marketplace where exchanges between consumers and sellers are truly one-to-one. This was the dream of one-to-one marketers a decade ago: Let's construct product (and product ideas) directly for each consumer and sell that consumer on a customized product that s/he will learn about, think about, feel good about, and eventually use, purchase or consume in some way. What a concept! That was Ben Franklin's premise in the 1770s and beyond.

Everything old is new again.....

The Times, They are A-Changin

This past week PBS aired a wonderful documentary by Martin Scorsese about Bob Dylan…but I just threw that in as a hip (in a 60s sort of way) cultural/historical touchstone. The title of this blog refers to the venerable New York Times, who announced that they are cutting some 500 positions (45 from the newsroom) in order to reduce costs. The decision comes on top of 200 jobs cut earlier this year. On the same day, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News announced plans to eliminate 100 newsroom positions citing challenges “with slow-growing advertising and a long-term decline in circulation amid changing media habits as more people go to the Internet for news.” But newspapers are not the only “old media” feeling the heat. Since moving from a scarcity (pages/spectrum) model to a surplus (bits) model, media are undergoing radical shifts in their ability to package, promote and charge for their content. The rise of consumer generated media and peer-to-peer sharing of everything from music to TV programs and movies has executives from Hollywood to Madison Avenue scratching their heads and reexamining their business models. Perhaps the most striking change is the advertising industry’s realization that they, like the Emperor of old, are parading down main street with little to cover their backsides.

Media content is just another form of information, and information is power. Perhaps you remember the early days of the Internet, and if so you might also remember a t-shirt slogan that said, “Information Wants to be Free!” Of course it does, but media executives are doing their best to ensure that it won’t get its wish. Time will tell who’s winning this war.

Is teaching intelligent design a First Amendment issue?

A lawsuit begins today (Sept. 26) in Pennsylvania challenging the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution in public school science classrooms.

Is this a First Amendment issue? Should teachers be permitted to teach intelligent design as part of their freedom of speech rights? Or is the teaching of intelligent design a breach of the establishment clause of the First Amendment?

VoIP and EBay

The Voice over Internet Protocol market is ready to pop. This new technology will likely surge over the next few years (big profits, many users). EBay is shelling out just over four billion dollars for VoIP leader Skype (their revenue for 2006 could exceed $200 million).

Questions… Is VoIP a death sentence for common carriers? How will phone companies fight the future? How will the FCC deal with 9-1-1 over the next few years?

Check out

http://www.fcc.gov/voip/

First responders

Please go to: http://www.observer.com/media_newsstory2.asp
Read the story of how journalists found themselves in a situation where they were the first, and for awhile, only responders to the aftermath of Katrina.
Then answer this question: If journalists had not been there, had not reported what they witnessed, had relied only on official sources -- how much longer would it have been before the government responded to the plight of the people trapped in New Orleans?

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?