Blame it on the Bottom Line

And here’s more fodder for the “newspapers suck” conversation …

Guerrilla journalist and rogue columnist Jon Talton shares his 2 cents on the demise of the newspaper industry at

http://roguecolumnist.typepad.com/rogue_columnist/2008/01/whats-really-wr.html

Talton argues that discussions surrounding this topic fail “to focus on the more significant reasons behind the decline in journalism,” which include:

• Creation of monopoly markets and cartels of newspaper ownership
• Consolidation of newspapers into large, publicly held companies
• Reduction in investment in the unique intellectual capital of newspapers: journalism
• Emergence of a conformist agenda
• Collapse of leadership
• Collapse of an unsustainable business model

Talton concludes, “Now the tailspin continues, and the damage to our democracy is hard to overstate. … It almost might make the conspiracy minded think there was a grand plan to keep us dumb.”

[Although the context is different, I couldn’t help but think of Neil Postman…]

Do you agree with Talton’s argument that these bottom-line issues are really why newspapers face so many problems these days? And do you agree with Talton that “the damage to our democracy” because of the weakening newspaper industry “is hard to overstate”?

Do newspapers suck?

A friend recently sent the following link to me:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/01/why-newspapers-suck-a-theory.html

The author, Ron Dreher, and his friend, magazine publisher Wick Allison, think newspapers are losing readers primarily because they are boring, and they are boring because of the writing style (i.e., The Associated Press style of newswriting).

"As I travel around the country, I always pick up the local newspaper, and inevitably the prose in the news sections is dry and bland," Dreher writes. "There's not much personality there. This is no accident. It's part of the mentality of American newspapering."

I don't share their opinion. I don't think straightforward AP style newswriting is boring at all. I don't read news stories to be thrilled by the writer's clever turn of phrase, and no lack of artful writing has ever deterred me from starting and finishing any particular news story.

In fact, when writers wax poetic in news stories, if only by their word choices, it can often make the news less than boring. It can make it downwright irritating, in the same way the squeal of fingernails on a blackboard can jar the brains of those hearing it.

Too many spelling errors, grammar errors, punctuation errors, syntax errors, as well as poor organization and incomplete information, have stopped me in my reading tracks far too often, and I think that kind of writing ought to cause readers to abandon a particular newspaper in droves.

But I don't think that's the phenomenon we're observing in the continuous decline of newspaper readership any more than I think it's a lack of brilliant prose that's turning off readers.

In fact, I'm not sure readers are turned off at all, yet newspaper readership is in decline nationwide, and everyone in the business is trying to figure out why.

I don't think Dreher's theory gives the industry a real answer or a real solution.

What say you?

FCC Claims Concerns with VNRs

The FCC anticipates increasing concerns in 2008 over video news releases which don't identify the source of the information. The issue involves public relations efforts that send video news releases to television stations packaging some promotion about a brand within the guidelines of a traditional news release.
The information should be truthful and informative or the television station isn't likely to air it and it looks to the viewer like a regular news story.

Okay, I'm admitting my PR bias and I'm going to explain why this isn't such a big deal.

"A new diabetes drug is on the market," the local anchor says..."Here's Jane Doe with some background." Then a video airs in which Jane talks about a new drug for diabetes, providing lots of information on its benefits to the sufferer. The information is truthful...the information is helpful to people who suffer from diabetes.
What the information isn't...is produced at that station. In fact, such information may be created by the diabetes drug manufacturer by a public relations team. The VNR promotes the new drug...so its sells...television stations get some good video on a newsworthy topic...the consumer gets helpful information.

Everybody's happy, right?
Not the FCC. The FCC believes the consumer should be told that the VNR is FROM the DRUG COMPANY. The argument behind this is the FCC believes the consumer should know when the information they're accessing is promotional to help the brand and its reputation, rather than the impartial views of a television journalist.

We've been reading news releases for decades from newspapers which don't identify that the news came from a source other than the newspaper. Print news releases are sent to newspapers daily with informative content of interest to the paper's readers.
CSU-Pueblo sends news releases out daily about all the important happenings at the university. The Chieftain staff and the local television and radio station staffs can't possibly come up here and cover all the news we've got to share on a daily basis. It's not LOGISTICLY POSSIBLE. CSU-Pueblo wouldn't get much coverage if the reporter had to personally come up here each time and write each individual story.
When you see a reporter's byline in a newspaper, it identifies the primary writer on the story. When you don't see a byline on a story, it could be because there were multiple authors...or it was a news release from the organization upon which the content is based.

It's standard protocol...it helps the media...as long as the content is accurate and truthful. What is the benefit of identifying every news release that comes into the paper or television station? If the media did, you might be surprised at how much of your news is generated by news releases. There's no other way to get newsworthy information to television and newspapers with such small journalist staffs.

The question is: Does this bother you as a consumer of news?

What can go wrong?

What can go wrong when pundits and pollsters report on elections? Everything, as the recent NH primary contest shows. There have been plenty of attempts to explain what went wrong, starting with questions about the poll's sampling frame. Just like the Dewey-Truman debacle nearly 60 years ago, phone polling biases may account for the bad data. In this case, pollsters may have failed to take into account the large number of "cell-phone only" respondents who skew younger and less conservative than those with land-line phones (see link below). Also, the early date of the primary meant that college students were still on break--perhaps out of state and less likely to vote.

But the real issue here for those of us who study the mass media is how did the news networks allow themselves to stumble once again in the rush to get it first? Yes, timeliness is a news value...but it should never trump accuracy. As former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw said, perhaps the news organizations ought to let the voters decide, then report on that!

If you're interested in the polling issues related to cell-phone users, check out this report from Pew Research Center for People and the Press.

Americans think Presidential Media Coverage is Biased and Trivial

A new Harvard study called the "National Leadership Index 2007" of over 1200 individual interviews (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/leadership) found that 64 percent of Americans don't trust media coverage of the presidential campaign. Also, 88 percent believe the coverage has too much focus on trivial issues, rather than major policy discussions. The study found that 84 percent believe the media has too much influence on American voting choices. More than 60 percent believe that media coverage is politically biased. What do you think about media coverage of the presidential campaign? Do you access DIVERSE media content in order to balance any possible bias? Or do you only access media content which agrees with your political worldview? HOW are you getting your presidential news? Broadcast TV? CABLE? Online? Print?

Impact of Writers Guild of America strike?

How has the now three-week-old Writers Guild of America strike affected your network TV usage, if at all?

According to LA Times writer Richard Verrier, "The strike may also accelerate the exodus of younger viewers from broadcast networks, which have been losing market share to the Internet and other forms of entertainment." (See Verrier's full article here)

Are you tuning out of network TV more than usual these days because of the strike and a lack of fresh programming? Or had you already abandoned broadcast networks for other forms of entertainment?

Colbert for President?

Comedian and fake journalist Stephen Colbert, star of the Colbert Report, has officially announced his intention to run for the office of President of the United States. He will enter the Presidential race in his native South Carolina, where he intends to run as a "favorite son" in the January, 2008 primary.



I've blogged before about entertainers entering politics, but this time the line blurring TV persona and authentic candidate is nearly imperceptible. Remember too that there is an historical precedent. You may recall Laugh-In comedian Pat Paulsen who ran for president as a gag in 1968, and then like Forrest Gump couldn't stop running.

Is Colbert, the man who nearly had a bridge in Hungary named after him, who has a Ben & Jerry's icecream flavor called AmeriCone Dream, and who is the genius behind "truthiness" and "wikiality," just toying with us or is this more than a stunt? We should know more tomorrow, after the November 1st filing deadline.

Oh, but there is one little problem. Something called the Equal Time Provision may be interpreted to mean that Colbert will have to give up his cable TV show, or force Comedy Central to offer equal time to competing candidates. Hey wait a minute, that might be pretty funny...or not!

Will Microsoft or Google own the future?

Microsoft has coughed up $240 million for a tiny share of Facebook – strange to some considering Facebook doesn’t generate $200 million in annual revenue (some Wall Street analysts place the Facebook value at $15 billion).

What did Bill Gates get? A stake in the Future - otherwise know as Social Networking.

MySpace is still the best in show, but Facebook is eyeing 50 million active users (both of these sites are an advertiser’s dream come true).

Google owns YouTube and DoubleClick (they were considering a stake in Facebook but Microsoft has obviously beat them to the punch), but they lack SN power.

So… can you see the future? Google needs Social Networking – where will they get it, how will they compete with Facebook or MySpace? Can Facebook lead, or will they always play second fiddle to MySpace? What is Microsoft’s plan aside from on-line advertisements inside Facebook? What new platforms, models, or applications will Microsoft deliver?

Will Santa be Bringing Toys for Christmas?

The Federal Trade Commission is getting quite involved in the recent toy crisis involving not only the famous toymaker, Mattel, but several others, as well. The incident involves China, the leading toymaker of U.S. toys, creating toys with lead paint, which is extremely harmful to children. Hundreds of thousands of Barbie dolls, GI Joes and other famous toys have been recalled to protect the U.S. consumer. Federal legislators are looking at the possibility of new regulations on the import of toys before they're sold to consumers.

A recent survey by eToys.com found that 59% of those surveyed believe toys made outside the U.S. are less safe than those made in America. In fact, 45% said they were willing to now pay more for toys that are made in the U.S.

Mattel has apologized to its consumers; Mattel has apologized to China stating that it isn't entirely their fault; Mattel may be facing its more serious issue ever...will the famous toymaker we all know and love be able to maintain its reputation as the world's greatest maker of...safe...toys? What should Mattel do to insure that its reputation stays intact?

Should the federal government get involved to insure toy safety, which may increase the price of toys? Should we expect the toy industry to regulate themselves? Should the toy industry stop doing business with China?

What kinds of toys will you be buying this Christmas?...or should I say, Santa?!

Press conference etiquette

Last week, Oklahoma State University football coach Mike Gundy issued a harsh (and, at times, personal) criticism of Jenni Carlson, a reporter/columnist from The Oklahoman, during a press conference (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VytIZZzee0 for Gundy’s comments during the initial press conference; see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4AisVxShCs&NR=1 for The Oklahoman’s response to the press conference; see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NGlt9v8lMY&NR=1 for Gundy’s follow-up comments). How does this kind of behavior during a press conference influence 1) the reputations of the individuals and organizations speaking at/holding the press conferences and 2) the individuals and organizations criticized during the press conference? Do you think this kind of criticism/behavior is appropriate during a press conference?

What's the Point?

A recent article in Advertising Age points to Wal-Mart's consumer base (Sep 3; pg 6, Jack Neff) and the interesting mix of individuals who find shopping there a good decision. Considering that Wal-Mart has recently unveiled a new ad campaign focusing on a change in slogan that encourages us to "live better", the belief that Wal-Mart shoppers are governed by an addiction to the price point is probably overstated. According to Neff's article, 56% of those studied are Wal-Mart lovers; 44 percent are indifferent or Wal-Mart haters.

Among the lovers are the price-value shoppers (16%), brand aspirationals (29%) and 11% are identified as price-sensitive affluents--those median income shoppers who need a bargain now and then. Brand aspirationals are heavy Wal-Mart users, says Neff's research, but they aren't emotionally committed to Wal-Mart as much as they are to the strong or super brands that are available on Wal-Mart's shelves.

Looking at the new advertising campaign--basically pay less, live better--certainly targets the gasoline price-pinched consumers who spend too much on gas and other commodities and therefore have less money for other important needs, but what's the point? Is Wal-Mart going after the emotionally uncommitted here or are they providing a convincing argument that shopping at Wal-Mart is the retail equivalent of having your cake and eating it too?

Wal-Mart, like every other discounter (or retailer) wants to be on the cutting edge and still be number one. Basically, the new ad campaign says middle class bargain hunter. We'll see what happens in the 4th quarter!

Who do you trust?

American culture has been experiencing an erosion of trust for some time, but a recent American Pulse Survey paints a bleak picture for politicians and the media. According to the survey of nearly 4,000 Americans, only 2.2% trust members of the Senate while 2.6% trust members of the House. Media doesn't do much better garnering trust from only 4.4% of Americans. Bloggers do slightly better with 5.8% and the President weighs in with a surprising 14.2%. Add them up and you find that there is still a lot of distrust out there...nearly 71% do not trust any of the above.




Another study (Edelman) looked at the issue of trust worldwide and compared trust in various industries. In the US, the media were dead last...behind Technology, Pharmaceuticals, Automotive, Energy, Retail, Health Care...even Insurance.

So who do they trust? More and more it is defined as "people like me." Word-of-mouth from my peers is still a trusted source. How about you...who do you trust? And why do you think the media is so unworthy of the nation's trust?

Preventing Demonstrators

The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making law that would abridge the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Some citizens, however, have found that our current president doesn't want any protests or demonstrations to spoil his public appearances. A young Texas couple, Jeffery and Nicole Rank, learned that the hard way on July 4, 2004, when they were arrested on the West Virginia capitol grounds after peacefully expressing their opposition to President Bush.

The two wore homemade T-shirts on which the international "no" symbol (a circle with a diagonal line across it) was superimposed over the word "Bush." One shirt said "Love America, Hate Bush" on the back; the other said "Regime Change Starts At Home."

They were asked to leave or cover up the shirts, and when they didn't do either, they were arrested, charged with trespassing, handcuffed and taken to jail despite their protests that they had the right to express their opinions under the protection of the First Amendment.

Later, charges were dismissed and the City of Charleston apologized to the couple.

The Ranks sued the federal government, which settled with them in August for $80,000, but not before the couple's ACLU lawyers managed to win release of a heavily redacted classified document (only a few of the 130 pages still show their content) that is a field manual for those who set up presidential appearances around the nation. The manual contains sections such as how to recognize demonstrators and how to stop them (literally: "Preventing Demonstrators").

The tactics used against the Ranks, though later costing the government some money, effectively did just that.

The question is: How should we interpret the First Amendment? If we have the right peaceably to assemble and protest, does government have the right to remove that inconvenient protest from sight and apologize later for the First Amendment infringement? Or does government have an obligation to allow the protestors to be seen and possibly heard (citizens with opposing viewpoints could drown them out -- and in fact, the manual suggests doing that before removal)? Where should the line be drawn, if at all?

Satellite of Love

The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce is giving thumbs down to the proposed XM and Sirius merger. The National Association of Broadcasters have demonized both satellite radio companies and have spent millions on lobbying in the hopes of blocking the marriage. The Catholic Church and the NAACP strongly support XM and Sirius joining forces. A line has been drawn in the sand and the government’s decision (anti-trust, etc.) may be coming soon.

So… where do you stand? Is the merger good for the consumer – is there any real benefit for the listener? Are we looking at two broken business models that will eventually break down even if they merge? Make your prediction now, and laugh or cry when the decision is announced.