Unjournalism

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

My last name is pretty unique. It’s a variation of the more common Kelleher or even Kelliher. It’s rather easy to track online mentions of me as well as my relatives with a simple set of recurring searches and a Google Alert for “keliher.” There’s almost no pollution from irrelevant results.

Until recently.

In January 2007, a woman by the name of Margaret Anderson Kelliher was named speaker of the house in the Minnesota state legislature. I’m not related to her, and we don’t even have the same last name (she has two Ls, I have one). But all sorts of people, even respected journalists at the local smart-news shop MinnPost.com, misspell her last name, causing my Google Alerts more pollution.

I noticed a whole new wave of “where’s your editor?” writing during the Republican National Convention. At first, several people claimed they were looking forward to “the convention in Minneapolis” — but it was in St. Paul, the capitol city that is dwarfed by Minneapolis, the larger of the Twin Cities. More often, though, another error popped up.

The convention was hosted at the Xcel Energy Center. It’s the home of the Minnesota Wild and named after a local utility company.

But many journalists assumed it was the Excel Energy Center — even some journalists right here in the Twin Cities (gasp!).

Committing either of these errors — “Keliher” instead of “Kelliher” or “Excel Energy Center” instead of “Xcel Energy Center” — would have resulted in a serious scolding from any of my journalism professors. Maybe a letter to the editor is warranted…

Photo courtesy of scbluedevil on Flickr (edited by me)

Tags: journalism, writing by Mike Keliher
No Comments »

Color me disappointed.

When I started reading this story in the New York Times, I thought I was going to read an analysis of how the hell so many prominent new outlets — “including U.S. News & World Report, The Daily News in New York, MSNBC.com and The Los Angeles Times” — ended up running a bogus story about “toxic” shower curtains that have invaded our homes.

Instead, I was presented with a general-interest newspaper’s take on how crafty PR pros can trick journalists into caring about “news” — quotes certainly intended, as we all know that anyone who has to resort to this kind of trickery doesn’t have much real news going on.

Here’s the transition from the “how could they run this story?” lead to the “here’s how PR people are sneaky” bulk of the article:

How do stories of this ilk get such bounce from major news organizations?

Those who make their living composing news releases say there is an art to this easily dismissed craft. Strategic word selection can catapult an announcement about a study, a product or a “breakthrough” onto the evening news instead of to its usual destination — the spam folder or circular file.

“P.R. people want to invest time in things that are going to get picked up, so they try to put something to the ‘who cares?’ and ’so what?’ test,” said Kate Robins, a longtime public relations consultant. “If you say something is first, most, fastest, tallest — that’s likely to get attention. If you can use the words like ‘money,’ ‘fat,’ ‘cancer’ or ’sex,’ you’re likely to get some ink in the general audience media.”

Think about the recent news stories you seen, read or heard, especially those that pertain to some study or research findings. Robins’ words seem as though they hold some truth.

But is it really about trickery? Later on in the Times piece:

Ken Sunshine, the head of a P.R. firm in Manhattan, said he thought the media had an institutional bias against “hype-y terms” like “world renowned” and “once in a lifetime,” which he studiously avoids putting in his news releases. “But ‘unique’ is fine,” he said, “if something really is unique.”

Um, yeah. I’m pretty sure I could get away with claiming to have the world’s nastiest curveball, too — uncontested — if it were true.

So we’re back where we started. Trickery might work occasionally, but really, it’s about substance. So how the hell did that story get such coverage? Was it the setting (the news conference was held at New York University Medical Center)? Was it the doctor who led the presentation, bestowing upon the happenings some level of credibility?

Photo courtesy of dullhunk on Flickr. (Frankfurt’s “On Bullshit” is a great book, by the way.)

Tags: journalism, public relations by Mike Keliher
2 Comments »

A recent editorial in the LA Times takes a look at the Google’s recent move to let “actual participants” in stories to add comments that will then appear alongside the original story as it’s displayed on Google News.

It’s a decent, level-headed look at the issue, but it suffers from a huge case of sarcastic “no shit?” The main thrust of the column — and its conclusion that’s full of implied profundity — it that “…Google may strive to be the world’s index, but it’s not journalism.”

Did anyone ever say “Google is journalism”? This column’s conclusion strikes me as little more than another stupid little battle in the pointless war between traditional media and Wild Wild Web.

The LA Times piece also suggests that “[Google accepting comments] implies that the stories aggregated by Google News are incomplete — possibly because of limited space, but also possibly because of bias, neglect or ignorance.”

That’s one way to look at it, and it’s not unreasonable, but I certainly don’t see it as the most likely case. Maybe Google’s new feature implies that journalism and the stories it produces are the beginning of a conversation. Isn’t that part of what journalists strive for — to draw attention to events, issues and people that deserve to be noticed, discussed, analyzed, debated?

Tags: journalism by Mike Keliher
No Comments »

So I haven’t posted in a damn long time. I’m moving and I’m getting married in a couple of weeks. As the kids say on the MTV, this shit is bananas. B-A-N-A-N-A-S.

Anyway, here’s my two cents for the day: Twitter — or more accurately, the people I follow on Twitter — has done a great job of quickly getting the word out about news lately. Most recent example: PodTech hiring a new CEO, James McCormick. I learned about this via a Twitter message (”tweet” if you’re nasty) from Jeremiah Owyang, who works for PodTech.

It’s been at least 20 minutes since I saw that message, and it has been about three hours since the news release went out over BusinessWire. And still there’s no mention on Valleywag or TechCrunch — not that this is a bad thing, really, but I’d expect either of those blogs to be all over this news. In fact, the post on PodTech’s own blog is the only other trace of this news I can find in the blog world.

Hooray for Twitter people.

Tags: blogging, breaking news, journalism by Mike Keliher
No Comments »

To those who make the blanket statement that bloggers aren’t journalists, look again at Michael Arrington’s TechCrunch. This is journalism.

Mike gives his site original, thoughtful reporting and often breaks big tech news — leaving the Wall Street Journal and other majors in the dust. Not all blogs are of this caliber, but then again, neither are all “journalists,” I suppose.

Tags: blogging, journalism by Mike Keliher
2 Comments »

When the Wall Street Journal writes that MSNBC is ramping up it’s online news efforts…

“Instead of selling itself as a “breaking news” destination, as it once did, the site is trying to highlight the range of news and entertainment it offers.”

…all I can think is, “Great, more Anna Nicole Smith ‘news.’ ”

I am a media junkie — Web, print, broadcast, podcast — and I love MSNBC. Something about it just feels better than all of the other TV outlets. But damn, those folks are losing me quickly. I can’t stand one more damn minute about Anna Nicole Smith or Paris Hilton.

For god’s sake, Joe Scarborough used to be a damn congressman. Now his show’s “highlight” is a segment called “Hollyweird.” It’s nice that he’s not fawning over the celebs, but doesn’t he have better things to talk about?

Tags: Web, journalism by Mike Keliher
No Comments »

The geniuses over at JibJab take on one of my favorite topics: the sad state of (what we refer to as) news. Watch it here.

In the past, cable news networks like MSNBC have been quick to completely disregard the day’s events and whore the JibJab videos all over town — you know, because the president is in them, so it’s news, right? I wonder if they’ll be as quick to show this one a thousand times per day, consider the (and Fox News and CNN) are direct targets of this assault on stupidity.

Tags: journalism by Mike Keliher
No Comments »

The New York Times has an interesting article about Wikipedia, one that recaps an apparently rather large brouhaha (in the Wikipedia community, at least) about a big-time Wikipedia contributor and editor and the false identity he put forth to the community.  Summary of the debate, at least as much as it matters for this here discussion:

This Ryan Jordan guy was within his rights to protect his identity. Who cares about the name under which he contributed to the site?

vs.

Who the hell does this guy think he is, anyway? He lied about who he was in a community based on trust and contributing to the greater good.

The Times article also discusses a New Yorker article about Ryan Jordan — or Essjay, as he’s known to Wikipedians — and while that whole bit of editorial “whoops, sorry” is interesting, I think the Times made a huge, glaring, ugly, smelly omission: What about the content?

The story of this misrepresented identity is interesting, but there’s zero discussion of the accuracy of this guy’s contributions to the site. The Times says:

In a discussion over the editing of the article with regard to the term “imprimatur,” as used in Catholicism, Essjay defended his use of the book “Catholicism for Dummies,” saying, “This is a text I often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it’s credibility.”

But we get no look into whether this or any other assertions made by Jordan were accurate. Regardless of how they were defended, isn’t anyone curious about the substance? Even the discussion page associated with Essjay’s Wikipedia entry has no detailed discussion about the material involved in this mess (that is, the discussion page yields on evidence of this discussion after a quick scan of the page — it’s a little too “inside baseball” to be read at length).

Even if this fact check has been done and is published somewhere — and I hope…I believe it is — why didn’t the New York Times (”All the news that’s fit to print” or some bullshit like that) tell me about it? I feel cheated, as if this newspaper article were misrepresenting itself, purporting to be “insightful” and perhaps even “investigatory,” when in reality, it’s little more than the journalistic equivalent of a 24-year-old from Kentucky lying about having a Ph.D.

Tags: ethics, journalism by Mike Keliher
2 Comments »

In an effort to clear up some of the many things I’ve intended to write about during the past couple of weeks, I’m going to fire off a quick run-down of links and my quick thoughts.

Hiccups girl
This poor girl can’t get rid of the hiccups (old news story, I know). She pops about 50 times a minute and has been doing so for the past month. Long story short: She was going to appear on the Today show, and the folks at Good Morning America just couldn’t stand to be beat on this hard news story (he said with loads of sarcasm). So they called the girl’s house 57 times, slipped notes notes under her NYC hotel-room door and otherwise tormented her and her family. My point: Isn’t this what journalists hate about PR folks?

72 percent of PR people: stupid or lazy?
“Preliminary results from a Kent State University/BurellesLuce survey shows that 72 percent of PR professionals do not have a formal system for monitoring the blogosphere. Only 19 percent say they do monitor blogs…” The survey was of “938 clients and prospects of BurrellesLuce, the media monitoring and analysis company.” Do these people know that Topix.net, Technorati and Google Blog Search are free? And that drunken monkeys could use them?

FakeYourSpace: If you want it, kill yourself
I’m not making this up. “FakeYourSpace is an exciting new service that enables normal everyday people like me and you to have Hot friends on popular social networking sites such as MySpace and FaceBook. Not only will you be able to see these Gorgeous friends on your friends list, but FakeYourSpace enables you to create customized messages and comments for our Models to leave you on your comment wall. FakeYourSpace makes it easy for any regular person to make it seem like they have a Model for a friend.”

“… Our basic plan starts at only $.99 This will give you 2 messages per week for 4 weeks. So for only $.99 you will receive 8 messages that will be there forever, not to mention our Models picture which will show up on your friends list. A pretty small price to pay for online popularity don’t you think?” This is the saddest thing I’ve ever seen. If this honestly appeals to you, you have two option: 1) please turn 14 years old — your birthday’s coming up, right? Or 2) shoot yourself in the mouth.

Greatest parody ever: Truth in Ad Sales
For anyone in advertising, marketing, PR — or anyone anywhere with any sense of humor — this is a must-see. It’s priceless. My favorite part: The exec who wakes up in the middle of the pitch meeting and tries to sound involved by stammering buzzwords: “Uh…mobile!…online!”

Newspaper scared of facts
The Raleigh News & Observer recently ran a description of rape suspect that included all sorts of details but omitted any mention of race. Isn’t that a little more significant than whether or not he was wearing a do-rag, which, mind you, is a little more removable than skin pigment? “I don’t think in this community the description of someone as black or white is as meaningful as it once was,” according to the paper’s managing editor. What other descriptive qualities are soon to become no longer “meaningful,” Mr. Editor? “The suspect is a person. In a do-rag. He or she committed a crime of an unspecified nature. If you see him or her, please let us know.”

A commentator from the Poynter Institute, a journalism think-tank-thingy, says: “All Irish-Americans don’t look alike. Why then, accept a description that says a suspect was African-American?” Well, for starters, some people will say “African-American” is a stupid phrase to use in many of the contexts in which it’s used these days; it’s lost any specific meaning. Second, if you have a problem with “African-American,” fine. Tell me the suspect’s skin is brown, tan, light brown, green, magenta, whatever. You’d tell me what color his hair and eyes are, right? What’s the difference?

Tags: blogging, journalism, monitoring, new media, parody, public relations by Mike Keliher
No Comments »

A good article from a great writer on the future of journalism, as envisioned by Gannett, publisher of USA Today and a hundred billion other newspapers. The article from BusinessWeek’s Jon Fine talks about Gannett’s strategy for a new journalism — “pro-am,” they call it. The professionals do the heavy lifting, and the amateurs fill in the details. This will be the new approach at Gannett’s newspapers and eventually it’s TV outlets, as well.

More from Jonny Fine:

Perhaps the best early example of this fused approach took place at the Fort Myers News-Press. Home buyers were getting whacked with massive bills—as much as $30,000—for simple water- and sewer-line connections. The News-Press kicked off its probe with a short item, in the paper and on its Web site, announcing it was looking into these fees, and, by the way, did anyone have anything to share? After that: the deluge. Certain documents surfaced, suggesting potentially illegal activity involving bids; local engineers scrutinized blueprints posted online. These were posted and feverishly discussed in forums, which in turn generated leads and drove follow-up coverage in print and on the Web. It’s “a whole different way of building a story,” says Executive Editor Kate Marymont. The “microsite” that hosted that chatter became The News-Press’ most-trafficked, a position it maintains today.

How incredible is that? Ass-kickin’ journalism in an era in which no one wants to pay for it (neither the publishers [in terms of staff] nor the consumers [in seemingly any terms])! Beautiful. I’m genuinely excited to see what more examples of this new journalism — don’t any of you dare start talking about “journalism 2.0″; that’s such a lame and lazy buzzword-ification — we’ll soon see. This makes we want to get into the journalism business. Wait, does this count as being “in the business”?

Tags: future, journalism by Mike Keliher
No Comments »