Unjournalism

In the wake of recent companies-not-disclosing-their-online-activity news like this, the Washington Post brings us this little gem.

The Post writes about a company in Arlington, Va., called New Media Strategies. NMS is a company that provides online monitoring services for clients ranging from movie studios to politicians. Reading the article makes this sound like a fun place to work for a combination geek-and-media-junkie like me. But they’re doing more than just monitoring, as the Post writes:

Over the past few years, the “online analysts” have helped the companies track their reputations, found ways to get their products noticed and joined online conversations to help steer them the way clients want them to go.

Monitoring and “steering”? What a deal!

Immediately, ethics concerns arise. Eagarly awaiting that part of the article — “I hope the write about…!” — I make the jump to the Post article’s second page, which reveals:

Curran said she is careful to acknowledge her connection to clients when it’s required. All online marketers have to walk a fine line when they work the blogosphere. Federal Trade Commission rules require them to identify their roles when they’re making a point on behalf of a client, but if they’re gossiping about the latest episode of “Desperate Housewives” they can legally be as anonymous as anyone else.

Disclosure “when it’s required”? “Can legally be” anonymous? Sure, maybe it’s legal, but hopefully the folks at Edelman/Wal-Mart have learned that there’s more to this than the law. All of us in public relations, marketing, advertising, communication and the like are trying hard to figure out how to do our jobs well in these wild and crazy times, and there are surely no set-in-stone rules right now. Still, I think most will say that only disclosing a professional, client-employee relationship in these types of forums only when legally required is not enough.

The Public Relations Society of America has a code of ethics (PDF) for its members that says, among other things on the topic of disclosure, “Reveal the sponsors for causes and interests represented.” The Word of Mouth Marketing Association, of which Edelman is a member, has a code of ethics, too, which Edelman helped create. WOMMA has set up a Web page dedicated to discussing Edelman and it’s lack of blogging disclosure.

All of this points one thing: Following the law isn’t enough when it comes to disclosure. Professional communicators should follow a strong code of ethics. I hope New Media Strategies has stronger ethics than this article depicts.

Tags: Edelman, Wal-Mart, Web, ethics, monitoring, public relations by Mike Keliher
3 Comments »

Several folks in the public relations industry are working to make the grand-daddy of all tried-and-true PR tools — the news release — more relevant and useful in this crazy new world of blogs and Web journalism and “we don’t want no more of your corporate BS marketing junk.” I’ll spare you the details and simply point you to some the fruits of their important, difficult work at socialmediarelease.org.

Several of the folks close to this issue have formed a “working group” that focuses on hammering out issues related to the revamping of the news release. They post occasional podcasts to report on what they’re up to; NMRcast, they call it, with NMR being “new media release.”

In the most recent installment of said podcast, Tom Foremski, the guy who’s basically responsible for starting this whole discussion with this post, eventually brings the discussion around to the name “social media release.” At about eight minutes into the podcast, Tom says something to this effect:

Maybe it should be called a “media release” or something like that because there are so many constituencies to serve.

He’s hesitant to call it a social media release because the content is for more than just perveyors of social media like bloggers and podcasters. So what do you call a document that is designed to officially release important information — often news — to various groups with different interests or reasons for caring about that information?

Call me a visionary, but here’s my suggestion: How about calling it a damn “news release”?

I don’t intend to stomp on the folks who are leading this discussion around bringing this PR tool into the brave new world of blogs and the like, but this strikes me as a textbook example of thinking too hard. You’re conveying news — “releasing” the information, if you will. What’s wrong with “news release”? You’re not playing favorites by calling it “press release” (old school!) or “social media release.”

You could call it a “new media release” — which many people use interchangeably with “social media release” — but that’s, at least in name, bypassing consumers or anyone who’s not “media.” And as many people now recognize, news releases on the Web are increasingly a direct-to-consumer source of information, no longer requiring a reporter to take interest in a news release and putting that news in the paper or on TV.

Keep up the great work, NMRcasters. But don’t get hung up on the name. That’s not what needs to change. Trash like this news release is what needs to be done away with.

Tags: Shel Holtz, Tom Foremski, common sense, public relations, social media release by Mike Keliher
No Comments »

Kate Parry, reader’s representative at the Minneapolis Star Tribune, wrote a piece last Sunday about Sid Hartman, a 130-year-old sports columnist at the paper, and his apparant breach of journalism ethics resulting from his appearance in a commerical for Sun Country airline. In her Sunday column, Parry explains:

In the commercial, Hartman appears holding a Star Tribune and remarks that he is reading “the greatest newspaper in the world.” That comment, he said, was why he didn’t consult with editors before signing on with Sun Country. “I thought I was doing a favor for the Star Tribune. I say nothing about Sun Country. This was a free commercial for the Star Tribune.”

Hartman would not be where he is professionally if he were that naive.

What an uncomfortable situation he has created for his colleagues, particularly reporters covering the airlines, and for the three top managers — Publisher Keith Moyer, Editor Anders Gyllenhaal and Managing Editor Scott Gillespie — who determined what would and wouldn’t be the consequences for Hartman’s disregard of the Star Tribune’s ethics policies.

I understand the need for a strong sense of ethics in the newsroom. But at the same time, I’m a huge fan of common sense. Common sense and stern rules often butt heads, but for the sake of argument, let’s give this a try:

Ethics in the newsroom, yes, great. But Sid’s hardly part of the newsroom. Generally, newspapers make the “newsroom/not newsroom” distinction when explaining the separation between reporters and editors on one side and editorial writers and their colleagues on the other. But even within the newsroom, you’ll find columnists — the writers whose pictures run in the paper along with their column — whose work is different from completely impartial (in theory) reporting but still appears on the same page as that reported news.

More importantly, Sid is a damn sports columnist. I know that sports sections are probably among the most-read pages in the paper, but I’m too lazy to Google up the numbers to show it. At the same time, you’re retarded if you think sports coverage is on the same level as the content in the A section or the local news section. Hell, even the editorial and op-ed page — opinionated as they may be — are more newsworthy than the sports section.

Even when a news reporter is writing about a dull-ass city hall meeting or the like, it’s still more significant than box scores or “you’ll never believe what the goalie said in the locker room after the game” reporting. Considering the financial tumult in the newspaper business, though, I don’t think anyone’s going to seriously advocate dumping the sports section any time soon. I’d rather throw the sports section away to get to the business section than not have a newspaper.

Getting back to Sid and Sun Country, let’s throw a little common sense at the situation. Parry asks if reporters covering the airlines and related business issues will be able to do their jobs as well in light of this “disregard” for ethics, or if those reporters will be taken seriously, citing the possible perception of compromised integrity. Well, if those reporters honestly — and I do mean honestly, not just “honestly” when discussing the ethics of the situation and feel it necessary to sound righteous — think Sid’s commercial appearance prevents them from doing their jobs, fire those pussies.

I thought reporters were supposed to be hard-asses who don’t take “no” for an answer and want to stick it to the man (that link is a little joke) no matter the cost. If a sports columnist showing up in an ad — saying little more than to declare his newspaper is “the greatest newspaper in the world” — maybe the newspaper business should go belly up.

Tags: Kate Parry, Sid Hartman, Star Tribune, common sense, ethics, journalism by Mike Keliher
No Comments »

Watching local news is depressing enough on its own. Watching local news on a Fox affiliate during American Idol season is even worse.

Here in the Twin Cities, our local Fox news broadcasts are pitiful on their best day (they once ran a story around July 4th informing viewers that fireworks pose a fire hazard - seriously). But when American Idol is a-runnin’, Simon and company seem to bring out the pitiful-est in Fox. Obviously there’s a corporate-ownership connection, but that’s no excuse for two or three minutes of a 30-minute newscast (probably about 23 when you throw in commercials) being devoted to discussion of the blog chatter about American Idol on the Fox affiliate’s own Web site.

First of all, how sad is it that the station hosts its own local American Idol blog? Second, why shouldn’t I kill myself after hearing reporters and anchors pander to Simon Cowell and Rupert Murdoch and then blatantly editorialize about the terrible singers?

I actually enjoy watching American Idol. It’s fun watching people embarass the hell out of themselves. But I’m still holding on to the vague recollections I have of the days when the news was, you know…newsy. The inane banter between anchors has been there as long as I can remember, but at least it was never about a damn reality-TV show.

</rant>

Tags: TV news by Mike Keliher
No Comments »

Matthew Smith, a VP at News Broadcast Network Inc., a “broadcast public relations firm,” writes in today’s Bulldog Reporter “Barks and Bites” that he takes issue with the idea that “traditional media are no longer effective.” He says it’s all about using the right message that resonates with the audience, regardless of the medium.

I’m all for podcasts and blogs and the like, and I believe in addition to being cool, many of them are invaluable. At the same time, I agree with Smith: traditional media ain’t dead, nor will it be anytime soon.

Still, though, I must call bullshit on one point Smith makes in his article. He writes: “As of this writing, this month’s most watched video on Youtube.com has 2.7 million views. By way of contrast the average audience for all VNRs and b-roll in our current reporting cycle is 14 million impressions.” (See these links for explanations of VNRs and B-roll, if you’re not familiar.)

Interesting point, sure, but knowing the little bit that I do about how things like VNRs and B-roll work, I have to question how many of those reported 14 million “impressions” were actually realized? How many people actually watched the VNR/B-roll footage in question? I believe - and please correct me if I’m wrong - that this 14 million number is arrived at, at least in part, by adding up the audience numbers for news programs that carry the supplied footage. That math is dubious at best. Plus, how many of those people gave a damn?

In the case of YouTube’s 2.7 million, those views were, more likely than not, people actively seeking out or requesting that content. And they are a hell of a lot more likely to be actually watching that video, rather than just having the news on TV while they’re making dinner.

So for starters, Matt, you’re comparing apples and oranges. Actually, it’s more like “impressions” of content to, for lack of a better word, “requests” for content. And either way, this is getting away from your core point: that it’s the message, and ultimately the results, that matter. And you’re right on that.

Technorati Tags: Matthew Smith, News Broadcast Network, YouTube, traditional media, new media, message, medium

Tags: VNR, public relations by Mike Keliher
No Comments »