Archive for March, 2005

Great read in this week’s Economist on the digital divide. Important for every communicator thinking about social responsibility programs. Far too often the approach is to take whatever technology the company has, offer a freebie to developing nations, then launch into a discussion on the digitial divide. With lots of arm waving and pictures of children. The Economist really gets at the issue:

…the digital
divide is not a problem in itself, but a symptom of deeper, more
important divides: of income, development and literacy. Fewer people in
poor countries than in rich ones own computers and have access to the
internet simply because they are too poor, are illiterate, or have
other more pressing concerns, such as food, health care and security.
So even if it were possible to wave a magic wand and cause a computer
to appear in every household on earth, it would not achieve very much:
a computer is not useful if you have no food or electricity and cannot
read…

They get at the need for mobile phones, not PCs:

…by promoting the spread not of PCs and the internet, but of mobile phones… Plenty of
evidence suggests that the mobile phone is the technology with the
greatest impact on development. A new paper finds that mobile phones
raise long-term growth rates, that their impact is twice as big in
developing nations as in developed ones, and that an extra ten phones
per 100 people in a typical developing country increases GDP growth by 0.6 percentage points…

That’s where they loose me a little… Let’s not confuse PCs and the Internet. The Internet is equally important on the phone. Perhaps more important. And it’s the seamless connection between a PC in the developing world and a mobile device in the developing – all across the Internet – that really opens the door to opportunity.

The action for communicators is a clear one though: If you want to make the digital divide an agenda item in your pursuit of social responsibility – if you want to make it a platform for your senior executives – then you’ll need to do better than most have up until now.

So much for transparency. David Barstow and Robin Stein report in the The New York Times today that video news releases (VNRs) have been masquerading as news all over the place. I’m sure the PR folks behind them are just delighted that media outlets are happy to take this prepackaged content and let it run, unleashing on the unwitting public their version of reality.

"To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the
local news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The
report from Kansas City was made by the State Department. The
"reporter" covering airport safety was actually a public relations
professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security
Administration. The farming segment was done by the Agriculture
Department’s office of communications…

Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively
used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged,
ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long
distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies
to auto insurance." NYT, March 13, 2005

I’m the first one to encourage the use of VNRs. Especially given the (waning) power of broadcast media. But they shouldn’t run as news without some kind of indication that they weren’t created by the media outlet.

News media need to have a clear standard here. All VNRs should carry a specific warning "Video News Release – Might Be Harmful To Truth". No, really, there needs to be a standard here. And private and public enterprises should insist on it. This is another one for PROTs.

For instance, a spokesperson or PR person should be labeled just that. They don’t get to masquerade as security staff or reporters.

Codes do exist. As the NYT reports, the Radio-Television
News Directors Association, the main professional society for broadcast
news directors in the United States has a clear code of ethics in which stations must"Clearly disclose the origin of information and label all material provided by outsiders." Some stations go further, all but
forbidding the use of any outside material, especially entire reports.

Given the hole this story has exposed I’m certain plenty of PR Pros are thinking hard about a VNR as part of their next launch…

Here are some great notes/mini-transcripts from a gathering at The Publicity Club of New York. Commentators included

• Elizabeth Spiers, Editor-In-Chief, Mediabistro.com & Founding Editor, Gawker.com
• Lockhart Steele, Managing Editor, Gawker.com
• Jennifer Chung or Jake Dobkin, Co-founders of the Gothamist
• Jay Rosen Associate Professor New York University, Dept. of Journalism

Q:  Does the rise of blogging mean the demise of Public Relations? Is traditional media dead?

A: Blogging is just another outlet for public relations.  In fact, Richard Edelman (of Edelman Public Relations) runs his own personal blog. PR professionals should take advantage of the medium, as opposed to seeing it as a threat.      

Q:  Do sponsors enhance the buzz, or site activity?  Does the site sponsor influence the credibility of the site?

A:  You can’t pull the wool over the readers’ eyes.  Bloggers create their own credibility, based on the caliber of material that they chose to include in their blog.  Advertising doesn’t play a significant role in determining who visits a blog.

Q: What kind of subject matter lends itself to blogging?

A:  Media gossip and local events tend to be the easiest to capture in a blog.  Wall Street is a harder beat to cover, due to increased regulation and less need for self promotion.

Q: Explain the term “Flogs.”  And talk about how companies can take advantage of them.

A: Flogs are “fake blogs-” blogs that companies create to generate publicity for themselves.  The key to a successful flog is to be strategic in your approach – avoid “PR Dribble.”  A flog that provides an interesting angle and compelling information is much more successful at drawing readership.  Linking to, or referencing other blogs on the subject also increases credibility.

Q:  If bloggers don’t get their info sent to them directly, what is the process of obtaining timely/relevant information for their blog?

A: Blogs don’t have traditional reporters “out on the scene.” So bloggers rely on what news and information is already out there. Bloggers tune into Google alerts, newspapers, television, and other blogs as resources.

Q: Are bloggers able to get press credentials?

A: Yes, although the .com stigma is often a barrier, especially when dealing with touchy political issues.

Q: Comment on the statement: Blogs are not a credible source of information because “bloggers aren’t trained press.”

A: Of course this is sometimes true. (There are 8 million bloggers). Some people create a blog dedicated solely to their cat, for instance.  However, many bloggers are, in fact, top-notch editors and reporters at major news publications.  In fact, some of these outlets have blogs directly affiliated with their print news. 

Q: Should there be rules set by news outlets whose reporters may also run their own blogs?

A: A number of free speech issues could be violated if employers were to set rules on what their
reporters can blog.  However, it has become increasingly acceptable for big news organizations to work with bloggers.  Similarly, blogs are also another source that reporters can draw their knowledge from.

Q: Where or how can I get RSS (Real-Simple-Syndication)?

A: RSS is downloadable software that enables a user to receive rapid, real-time syndication of news and
content from multiple users.  Basically, it serves as news source on the desktop of your computer. Common sites that offer free RSS include NewsGator.com and BlogLines.com

Q: Are they self involved?

A: Bloggers are often self-involved. It is not necessarily out of the need to become famous, rather the desire to communicate with like-minded people.

Q: What is the future of blogging?  Is this a fad?

A: 62% of Americans are still not even aware that blogs exist.  However, there are bloggers who have maintained the SAME blog for five straight years.  This staying power is a good sign that blogs are not a passing fad.  Blogging, if nothing more, is an efficient way for people to communicate over the internet. 

A: This is a very unsettled time for the media industry.  I feel that the “category” itself will eventually disappear as blogging becomes more mainstream.  People and companies will no longer be referred to as “bloggers,” just as today, we do not refer to people as “emailers.”  That just goes without saying. 

A:  The world of “controlling the message” is over.  News and information is no longer in the hands of a few (large news outlets).

Thanks to the team at Fleishman for the email. There’s more up on their site including this interview with Lockhart. Here’s his response to the hot topic of bloggers as jounralists:-

 Q:  Are bloggers journalists?

Steele:
There are definitely some bloggers who do really good journalism.
Certainly, in the political world, we’ve seen bloggers who spend a lot
of time calling sources and doing real journalism. And then there are
lots of bloggers who do pure commentary. The media tend to think about
blogging as a monolithic thing. Like all bloggers are all one way or
another. There are many different ways to be a blogger.

To me, blogs give you the feeling that you’re getting the news straight.
And while you may be getting a writer’s take on the news, there’s no
attempt to hide the fact that there are biases in play. In blogs, all
of the biases are on table. Obviously, if one person is writing it,
it’s going to be opinionated. And people like reading other people’s
opinions.