- What constitutes news these days?
- Are reporters the only gatekeepers through an ever-increasing number of outlets beyond the mainstream media (MSM)?
- Have the diminishing numbers of professional reporters in MSM newsrooms overburdened trying to cover today's news without even getting to think about long-term projects meant that important information is not getting out?
- How do reporters want their news packaged these days? With html releases that link to relevant info, expert sources, and statistics that make news-gathering easier, or does that diminish the source's credibilty?
- Do consolidations in the news industry mean that Reporter X, who is covering a story for News Organization Y, is increasingly being tapped through uneasy partnerships and alliances between news organizations, to repackage and post their stories in various formats for News Organizations A, B, and C, in addition?
- Should news flacks and other PR practitioners be spending more time blogging, tweeting, Facebooking and social networking to get their stories directly to the audiences whom they most want to reach instead of spending so much time on media relations that seems to be offering diminished returns?
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Emerging from Change: The New Global Consciousness
So what's next in our post-consumer age? It seems the economy may be leveling off, if not on the rebound. Economists seem sanguine that we are poised to make a recovery by 2011. Two years is not a long wait for most people - although for people already in retirement, or slammed by medical bills, it may seem a lifetime.
Not yet time to start shopping at Neiman-Marcus again.
But has the wave of crisis that washed over us last fall really dissipated? Or is it, like the ocean tide, merely the first in a series of storm-surged sized crests that will, ultimately, knock down our system for good?
Maybe our tribute this year to Darwin's publishing of the theory of evolution should also take note of the fact that the speed of evolution is increasing exponentially. From prehistory to the Renaissance were many technological advances, but nothing can match the rate of invention from ENIAC to Mac. Likewise, the spread of communications. Perhaps the transition from etching on stone to Gutenberg's printing press advanced the spread of ideas over centuries. But today, the entire world is connected in a communications Web from Google to Facebook to Twitter.
What does this speed and ease of connecting to the farthest reaches of the world herald? And is this rise in connectivity coincidence, or synchronicity?
Will the next wave compel us to take use these powerful tools to retool not just our economy, but our environment, approach to relations with other nations, and most importantly, the way we take care of ourselves and our families in a more mindful manner?
Modern economists in our consumer economy speak of "creative destruction" to describe the rise of innovation and efficiency in capitalism, but I doubt they think of themselves as part of the fallout. Perhaps what we are now seeing is the first wave that will put them - and many others who cannot ride through the storms - the kind of environmental, social, political upheavals that will lead us from a destructive "modernism" that values individual power and wealth to a greater in-tune-ness with our world, that will eventually give rise, not to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, but to the Health of Humankind.
Not yet time to start shopping at Neiman-Marcus again.
But has the wave of crisis that washed over us last fall really dissipated? Or is it, like the ocean tide, merely the first in a series of storm-surged sized crests that will, ultimately, knock down our system for good?
Maybe our tribute this year to Darwin's publishing of the theory of evolution should also take note of the fact that the speed of evolution is increasing exponentially. From prehistory to the Renaissance were many technological advances, but nothing can match the rate of invention from ENIAC to Mac. Likewise, the spread of communications. Perhaps the transition from etching on stone to Gutenberg's printing press advanced the spread of ideas over centuries. But today, the entire world is connected in a communications Web from Google to Facebook to Twitter.
What does this speed and ease of connecting to the farthest reaches of the world herald? And is this rise in connectivity coincidence, or synchronicity?
Will the next wave compel us to take use these powerful tools to retool not just our economy, but our environment, approach to relations with other nations, and most importantly, the way we take care of ourselves and our families in a more mindful manner?
Modern economists in our consumer economy speak of "creative destruction" to describe the rise of innovation and efficiency in capitalism, but I doubt they think of themselves as part of the fallout. Perhaps what we are now seeing is the first wave that will put them - and many others who cannot ride through the storms - the kind of environmental, social, political upheavals that will lead us from a destructive "modernism" that values individual power and wealth to a greater in-tune-ness with our world, that will eventually give rise, not to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, but to the Health of Humankind.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Media Unbiased?
So here's the deal: today, when you deal with the media, you don't really know who you're talking to. Client A (who shall remain unmentioned due to confidentiality concerns) gets story request from pushy, big city tabloid daily to meet unreasonable deadline on big story with no benefit of context, (i.e., we've talked to a source who alleges your practices are unreasonably impacting the public), to respond to, "We want to talk to your principal for an overview of what you've been doing for the past 30 years." Respectfully decline the interview when reporter refuses to be more specific about the subject of the interview (suspecting political agenda, based on the paper), only to get slammed with a front page headline alleging abuses from an ex-administration bigwig who had auspices over this same jurisdiction up until a month-and-a-half ago, who suddenly finds the practices "unconscionable."
Meanwhile, local television news station, network affiliate and supposedly part of the MSM (mainstream media), interviews the reporter about the story as an exclusive, without even bothering to request an interview with my client, runs the story on the evening news in advance of the tabloid, and doesn't bother to ask for a response until the proverbial garbage has hit the fan and the client must now play defense.
As it turns out, network affiliate has a link to said tabloid on its news site and must frequently be in the habit of breaking stories or partnering with this not-too-credible paper.
Is it about news, or sensationalism? Have we returned to the days of yellow journalism? Is there even such a principle as "Truth in Disclosure" when talking to the media these days, to find out if by talking to Organ A, you are really talking to A plus B and any undisclosed alliances and partnerships that are in effect?
As newspapers close and TV news loses audience share to blogs and newly-emerging unrefereed online press, is corporate pressure to maximize revenues and recapture audience so overwhelming that the audience no longer even knows who is responsible for what? Doesn't the public, not to mention those of us who duke it out daily with reporters over fair and unbiased reporting on clients, have the right to know? What good is a free press if it is now an unfettered free-for-all. And where is the FTC and FCC today - is there a new need for regulatory oversight in this lax environment of media consolidation? And where does the almighty "buck" stop when reporting is corrupted by obfuscation and lack of transparency in the name of maximizing revenue?
Meanwhile, local television news station, network affiliate and supposedly part of the MSM (mainstream media), interviews the reporter about the story as an exclusive, without even bothering to request an interview with my client, runs the story on the evening news in advance of the tabloid, and doesn't bother to ask for a response until the proverbial garbage has hit the fan and the client must now play defense.
As it turns out, network affiliate has a link to said tabloid on its news site and must frequently be in the habit of breaking stories or partnering with this not-too-credible paper.
Is it about news, or sensationalism? Have we returned to the days of yellow journalism? Is there even such a principle as "Truth in Disclosure" when talking to the media these days, to find out if by talking to Organ A, you are really talking to A plus B and any undisclosed alliances and partnerships that are in effect?
As newspapers close and TV news loses audience share to blogs and newly-emerging unrefereed online press, is corporate pressure to maximize revenues and recapture audience so overwhelming that the audience no longer even knows who is responsible for what? Doesn't the public, not to mention those of us who duke it out daily with reporters over fair and unbiased reporting on clients, have the right to know? What good is a free press if it is now an unfettered free-for-all. And where is the FTC and FCC today - is there a new need for regulatory oversight in this lax environment of media consolidation? And where does the almighty "buck" stop when reporting is corrupted by obfuscation and lack of transparency in the name of maximizing revenue?
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Survival of the Fittest: Then and Now
200 years ago on February 12, two men were born on opposite sides of the Atlantic who would both change the face of the world. On the evidence, Charles Darwin would reach the conclusion that the existing species of the Earth evolved based on natural selection due to the biological principle of the survival of the fittest. His theory of evolution transformed our understanding of natural science and our appreciation of social order. All beings we know today survived some winnowing out process that selected for the strongest and fittest to survive.
Abraham Lincoln (I'm wondering if he had read Darwin's Origin of the Species?) would go on to become president of the US, which was already at war with itself, and forever more transform the way Americans looked at each other and how the world looked at America. The conflict between North and South was intractable, based on property rights and states rights vs. human rights. Slavery was seen as the powerful versus the captive. Lincoln looked at this and said in the Gettysburg Address, "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal," deciding that it was worth fighting to keep the Union. His thesis was not to protect the "fittest", as society perceived those who were strongest at the time, but survival of the country.
One message - it's inevitable that life is a struggle and only the strong survive. The other - life may be a struggle, but humans have a choice to make in who or what they defend (even the weakest). And Lincoln was being true to his principles in defending that notion.
Today's economic and international struggles mirror those of these two giants. Today's choices are being writ large by President Obama, but they occur on a more personal scale, too. Whoever among us has the capacity to serve the weakest has a choice to make: how can I help someone who has lost a job, is about to lose their home, is struggling financially to stay in college? Public stimulus is today's buzzword, but have we become too nervous about what is to come to help support our neighbors who may be less fortunate? Are the escape artists who led AIG and Merrill Lynch into companies now reliant on public charity for their sustenance - and who themselves pocketed millions of dollars as part of a planned and negotiated exit strategy - beyond seeing their own greed when millions are losing jobs based on their get richer quicker schemes for subprime mortgage investment?
Pondering big questions - who is the strongest in our world today? And will we support the weakest among us? How will history judge us?
Abraham Lincoln (I'm wondering if he had read Darwin's Origin of the Species?) would go on to become president of the US, which was already at war with itself, and forever more transform the way Americans looked at each other and how the world looked at America. The conflict between North and South was intractable, based on property rights and states rights vs. human rights. Slavery was seen as the powerful versus the captive. Lincoln looked at this and said in the Gettysburg Address, "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal," deciding that it was worth fighting to keep the Union. His thesis was not to protect the "fittest", as society perceived those who were strongest at the time, but survival of the country.
One message - it's inevitable that life is a struggle and only the strong survive. The other - life may be a struggle, but humans have a choice to make in who or what they defend (even the weakest). And Lincoln was being true to his principles in defending that notion.
Today's economic and international struggles mirror those of these two giants. Today's choices are being writ large by President Obama, but they occur on a more personal scale, too. Whoever among us has the capacity to serve the weakest has a choice to make: how can I help someone who has lost a job, is about to lose their home, is struggling financially to stay in college? Public stimulus is today's buzzword, but have we become too nervous about what is to come to help support our neighbors who may be less fortunate? Are the escape artists who led AIG and Merrill Lynch into companies now reliant on public charity for their sustenance - and who themselves pocketed millions of dollars as part of a planned and negotiated exit strategy - beyond seeing their own greed when millions are losing jobs based on their get richer quicker schemes for subprime mortgage investment?
Pondering big questions - who is the strongest in our world today? And will we support the weakest among us? How will history judge us?
Sunday, January 25, 2009
The Post-Consumer Economy
Does the slowing of the world economy necessarily mean innovation will be stifled. Investment in new technologies is costly, but investment in ideas is a matter of thought, effort, connecting. Is it possible for us, as a nation, not to BUY BUY BUY, but to collaborate, connect, and consume invention?
The question remains, how to prosper and succeed without the vast infusions of capital, and concomitant consumption that yields bottom-line returns, in these new times?
I believe brain power is the new capital in a post-consumer society. Although I believe the transformation will not be without some pain, how it will work is up to us.
The question remains, how to prosper and succeed without the vast infusions of capital, and concomitant consumption that yields bottom-line returns, in these new times?
I believe brain power is the new capital in a post-consumer society. Although I believe the transformation will not be without some pain, how it will work is up to us.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The Agenda@www.change.gov
My daughter just left yesterday to spend a semester in Paris. She has been studying French since she was in 5th grade, and is excited to be immersed in the culture and to master the language. She even had a French friend on Facebook, the daughter of one of my friends from my own Junior year abroad.
While we were at JFK airport awaiting her plane at the international terminal, it seemed that every third traveler must be a college student - a heartening sign that our young people are learning that, to be part of a global future, they must gain first-hand experience in cultures and languages of the world.
She emailed me as soon as she got there to say that, of the 60 students in her program, most of those she had met so far had barely passable French. That many of them saw the year as an excuse to travel. That they were looking for a break from study at home.
While our country gives lip service to the idea that preparing our children to meet the demands of the world they will inherit includes mastery of languages, respect of international culture and diplomacy, and most colleges and universities have some kind of study abroad program, I wonder if this is only window dressing - that foreign language study is still optional, that learning across cultures is scant, and that the idea of fostering understanding and mutual dialogue is non-existent.
"But everyone speaks English!" So "nous autres Americains" expect. Is this what our higher education system is preparing our kids for in this "flat" world? With a worldwide Facebook, Twitter and the ubiquitous cell phone to encourage them, shouldn't American students be as fluent in French or Chinese, as starved to learn the culture, as Chinese and Russian and Brazilian students are to study ours? Can we expect our young people to assume the mantel of leadership, innovation, diplomacy, commerce and discovery if they cannot communicate across cultures?
We learn languages best when we are taught young. While our K-12 education system is still based on local and state standards, and languages are low on the list of subjects that must be mastered, the Federal government can provide the bullypulpit to promote languages, international exchange, and stronger standards for foreign language education for the youngest scholars. Where will our world be without young people fluent in English and Arabic, Farci and Spanish - or tomorrow's emerging economy.
And let's make sure that social networks are part of that connection - where technology helps remove barriers to learning, we can all be friends. And that's a reason to lol!
While we were at JFK airport awaiting her plane at the international terminal, it seemed that every third traveler must be a college student - a heartening sign that our young people are learning that, to be part of a global future, they must gain first-hand experience in cultures and languages of the world.
She emailed me as soon as she got there to say that, of the 60 students in her program, most of those she had met so far had barely passable French. That many of them saw the year as an excuse to travel. That they were looking for a break from study at home.
While our country gives lip service to the idea that preparing our children to meet the demands of the world they will inherit includes mastery of languages, respect of international culture and diplomacy, and most colleges and universities have some kind of study abroad program, I wonder if this is only window dressing - that foreign language study is still optional, that learning across cultures is scant, and that the idea of fostering understanding and mutual dialogue is non-existent.
"But everyone speaks English!" So "nous autres Americains" expect. Is this what our higher education system is preparing our kids for in this "flat" world? With a worldwide Facebook, Twitter and the ubiquitous cell phone to encourage them, shouldn't American students be as fluent in French or Chinese, as starved to learn the culture, as Chinese and Russian and Brazilian students are to study ours? Can we expect our young people to assume the mantel of leadership, innovation, diplomacy, commerce and discovery if they cannot communicate across cultures?
We learn languages best when we are taught young. While our K-12 education system is still based on local and state standards, and languages are low on the list of subjects that must be mastered, the Federal government can provide the bullypulpit to promote languages, international exchange, and stronger standards for foreign language education for the youngest scholars. Where will our world be without young people fluent in English and Arabic, Farci and Spanish - or tomorrow's emerging economy.
And let's make sure that social networks are part of that connection - where technology helps remove barriers to learning, we can all be friends. And that's a reason to lol!
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Parties with Purpose - TM
In this new era of downsizing and diminished returns, is there still space to use events to market? Not the familiar trade show or that newly emerging budget-saver, the Webinar, but live meet-ups where the purpose is delivering, or reinforcing a vital message or expanding the message to a wider audience.
This is the question we are mulling over - does the market space exist today for using a live event to communicate, illustrate, persuade or even start a conversation for organizations with a strong social message? Think about the Change.gov model, where the Obama transition team invites citizens to hold local parties to debate policy issues and then share them with those in positions to effect real change - be it at the local, national or international level. Consensus cannot be formed solely in an electronic medium, though the debate can be waged, in part, online.
Is there a place for us humans, social beings, to gather, to celebrate, to debate, to learn and share - to create a meaningful DIALOGUE - in today's environment of reduced resources, modest means and lowered expectations?
More to come on this topic...
This is the question we are mulling over - does the market space exist today for using a live event to communicate, illustrate, persuade or even start a conversation for organizations with a strong social message? Think about the Change.gov model, where the Obama transition team invites citizens to hold local parties to debate policy issues and then share them with those in positions to effect real change - be it at the local, national or international level. Consensus cannot be formed solely in an electronic medium, though the debate can be waged, in part, online.
Is there a place for us humans, social beings, to gather, to celebrate, to debate, to learn and share - to create a meaningful DIALOGUE - in today's environment of reduced resources, modest means and lowered expectations?
More to come on this topic...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)