Just got word that the New York Times is shutting down its Denver bureau this week. National correspondent and former bureau chief Kirk Johnson tells us that “working from home is the new order of the day.”
. . . . . . . . .
Just got word that the New York Times is shutting down its Denver bureau this week. National correspondent and former bureau chief Kirk Johnson tells us that “working from home is the new order of the day.”
. . . . . . . . .
in Journalism, News Media | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
|
|
In an essay for Atlantic magazine, James Fallows laments the rise of new media but sees hope for a revived notion of true reporting.
Guest post by Megan Lane
While most media pundits lament the passing of journalism’s golden years, writer James Fallows also sees a silver lining.
In the aptly titled Learning to Love the (Shallow, Divisive, Unreliable) New Media, Fallows reiterates fears about today’s profit-driven, infotainment brand of news reporting. “Media will fail to cover too much of what really matters,” he writes, “as they are drawn toward the sparkle of entertainment and away from the depressing realities of the statehouse.”
A potentially frightening result of this sparkling facileness is the deterioration of the nation’s very intellectual capacity as mass media “optimized for attracting quick hits turns into a continual-distraction machine for society as a whole.”
Today's media consumers are uniquely empowered to decide the type of product they watch, read or listen to. We are no longer a national audience being told what’s important by a handful of trusted gatekeepers, says broadcast icon Ted Koppel. We are instead, he says, a “a million or more clusters of consumers, harvesting information from like-minded providers.” Has this tectonic shift in how Americans consume news diminished journalism’s institutional goal of ensuring a knowledgeable public? To some extent, yes. You can’t deny that in a consumer-driven news world, the Kardashians will win mass audience over the war in Iraq any day of the week.
Even so, Fallows believes that there may be hope for us. Yes, new media may mean a more unreliable, decentralized, “fluffier” style of journalism. But the Internet age may also help to bring a richer supply of legitimately important news to the masses in ways that no previous delivery vehicle could hope to accomplish. For all the sloppy and poorly produced content, media consumers today have access to an infinitely wider array of experienced news sources and public policy discussions that didn’t – and still don’t – exist in most newspapers and television coverage.
Could the new media age actually improve the field of journalism? It may be happening as we watch. Fallows concludes by considering the historic events in Egypt:
“ A major event in world history was covered more quickly, with more nuance, involving a greater range of voices and critical perspectives, than would have been conceivable even a few years ago. Within hours of the first protests in Egypt, American and world audiences read dispatches from professional correspondents—on Web sites, rather than waiting until the next day, as they had to during the fall of the Berlin Wall.”
Add to this faster, broader coverage the impact of amateur YouTube videos, real-time Twitter feeds, blog posts and Facebook conversations – all happening literally in time with breaking headlines. The result is a depth of news coverage and analysis that while difficult to classify in the context of traditional journalism is engaging the public like never before.
If Fallows is right, the death of journalism as we know it may actually be a rebirth into a new era of redefined, better journalism. It may be a maturing of the information age where truth still rises above the clutter of the information glut to be exposed, analyzed and spread further than ever before possible. Here’s hoping that he’s right.
(Megan Lane is a Senior Associate at GBSM, Inc. and was previously an editor at the Aspen Daily News. Scatterbox editor Steven Silvers contributed to this post.)
Here are highlights from the State of the News Media report by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism:
Sure, we still need journalism. | News organizations still produce most of the content that people read, see and hear.
We just don’t need so many newspaper reporters. | Newspaper newsrooms are about a third smaller than they were a decade ago. For the first time, more people are getting their news from the web than from newspapers.
Still back to you, Walter. | Television remains the primary source of news among grown-ups.
The new mainstream media was born with a dot com. | Newspaper shrinkage has been offset by new hires at online news organizations like Yahoo, AOL and the iPad “The Daily.”
The machine is the message. | With consumers deciding where and how they want to get news, the real power has shifted to the geeks who develop the devices and software.
Which is why I will be adding a thermometer doo-hickey to my blog. | Almost half of all Americans use a mobile device to get local news, mostly about the weather.
A mile wide and an inch deep. | Why does the journalism world miss so many important stories? Fewer reporters with not enough training and too much to do, obsession with speed, lower pay and hoards of people creating compelling content for free. That’s not even including the singing kitten videos.
. . . . . . . . .
in Journalism, News Media, Newspapers | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
|
|
More than a year ago I suggested that unemployed journalists will take many of the jobs that would have gone to communicators without newsroom experience.
That was an understatement.
In less than ten years, the nation’s news business has lost more than 14,000 jobs, some 25 percent of the entire industry. Things have yet to hit bottom, especially for newspapers and magazines.
The result, as the Atlantic’s Jeffery Goldberg calls it, is the The Great Journalism Exodus. Every PR agency, communications department and public affairs office in the country is hearing from reporters who are either unemployed or desperate to get out.
Goldberg wonders if all these hacks make good flacks, but the volume of job candidates makes this a non-issue. Many reporters don’t transition from the newsroom because they can't let go of their often sanctimonious cynicism about the business world. But just as many are damn good at it. They write better, learn faster and have better connections. That’s why they’re getting so many of the good jobs.
What's important is how this hacks-to-flacks migration represents a tectonic shift in the relationship between sponsored message and third-party credibility. For every public affairs officer and publicist with newsroom experience, there are many times that number of news beats and media outlets that simply no longer exist.
The changing landscape means the best communications people will be those with skills far deeper than writing press releases and pitching stories. They’ll need to know research, integrated marketing, community engagement, public affairs, issues management and yes, blogging and social media.
It’s worth keeping in mind whether you’re hiring a flack or a hack. Or one in the same.
. . . . . . . . .
in Business , Careers, Corporations, Employment, Journalism, News Media, PR, PRSSA, Public Relations | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
|
|
Here’s a common crisis communications question: Isn’t it best for a company to stave off reporters until all the facts are known and there’s “good news” to tell?
Rarely.
Stonewalling is usually as effective in holding off media coverage as pushing water uphill with a fork. Not only do your pants get wet but you look like a idiot.
News is going to happen with you or without you. It doesn’t matter if don’t have all the facts.
Executives and lawyers sometimes forget that news isn’t a conclusion. It’s a consumer product. It gets packaged to last as long on the shelf as possible. One headline follows another as new information is confirmed or disputed, as ramifications and fall-out are analyzed.
Media don’t have to get it all or even get it right. That’s why there’s another newspaper tomorrow. Or another web update in ten minutes.
Your response becomes an aspect of any ongoing crisis or controversy story. Sometimes it becomes the story.
To not participate in negative news is death by a thousand paper cuts. You force reporters to discover information, opinions and perspectives that will be rushed out, regardless of whatever contentions you have about accuracy or context. You likely just prolong and make more convoluted the bad publicity you’re trying to avoid.
Does that mean you have answers to every question? Of course not. But there’s a huge difference between hiding from the press and making a sincere effort to explain why you can’t answer a specific question, or why it isn’t appropriate for the CEO to be interviewed now. (But don’t say that “lawyers” won’t let you talk about things you’d otherwise be eager to explain. This will come back to bite you.)
Engaging the news media during an emerging PR crisis or controversy – including to respectfully decline comment – builds a foundation of credibility, even if you screwed up. You are acknowledging the legitimacy of the story and the media’s job. And that might buy you some breathing room to produce facts as quick as you confirm them, or at least be given the opportunity to respond to information and opinion before it’s rushed out there.
Good news or bad news, the rule is the same. Say only what you know to be true. But say it.
. . . . . . . . . .
Even in the always-on Internet era, many companies and government offices still rely on the old trick of waiting until late Friday afternoon to release bad news.
In most cases they're just making things worse come Monday. Here's why:
You stop nothing. People who care most have news alerts, stock tickers and other Internet tracking gizmos to get your stuff the second it hits the fan. Your stock will still move in after-hours trading guided by speculation and negative expectations. Media outlets will still run breaking news, except this time you’ll be covered either by reporters who know to dig for whatever you’re trying to hide or by inexperienced weekend reporters who don’t know the situation.
You create a new credibility issue. Maybe ten people on the planet won’t perceive that you tried to bury bad news on Friday afternoon. You risk creating a whole new PR problem with stakeholders and media for thinking they don’t see you trying to sneak out the back.
You dig a deeper hole. Friday-night announcements don’t make bad news go away. They create a 48-hour vacuum for people to assume the worst. Some will interpret your move as a signal that there’s still another shoe to drop. You could be in a worse defensive position on Monday morning as you reopen the doors to angry shareholders, anxious employees and reporters working on follow-up pieces about your company mishandled a crisis.
You still announce on Monday anyway. Assuming you’re somewhat successful in burying your bad news over the weekend, you’ll have to deal with the response on Monday from people seeing the news for the first time. Now you’re dealing with two sets of responses: the people who are just hearing it, and the people who saw and reacted to it over the weekend.
Bad News Friday isn’t a secret, it’s bad public relations.
. . . . . . . . . .
AP television writer David Bauder expands on the “frightening message” that media hoaxes like Balloon Boy and the fake press conference in which activists reversed the U.S. Chamber’s position on global warming are increasingly successful publicity tools.
At least, we think it’s AP television writer David Bauder.
. . . . . . . . .
The Balloon Boy hubbub proves a rule that companies in crisis should keep in mind: News is entertainment at the speed of the Internet.
Here’s how it happens:
The incident goes live. In this case, Balloon Boy’s parents called the TV stations.
The incident becomes breaking news. A herd mentality takes over competing media outlets. Nobody wants to miss the shot that everybody else has. Time elapsed: About half an hour.
Breaking news becomes a national story. Local coverage feeds into national outlets, and everything feeds into the Internet. Live event coverage goes viral. News links and commentary fly around email, Facebook and Twitter. People at work see headlines on the little TVs in the elevators. Time elapsed: About an hour.
The story becomes a controversy. News reports contradict earlier reports, creating scandal. Questions, rumors and speculation become a constant din interspersed with breaking news updates of even the most minuscule facts. Talking heads on cable and radio blame liberals or conservatives for allowing things like this to happen. Internet coverage and chatter multiplies a thousand-fold. Time elapsed: Three to four hours.
The controversy becomes pop culture. The people who started it get interviewed on Larry King. Leno and Letterman make jokes that night. Saturday Night Live refers to it in a promo for this week’s show. Three times the number of media outlets show up the next day, and so do dozens of other people from all over. Some bring alcohol, others bring hand-made posters. Internet coverage and chatter multiplies several thousand-fold. Supermarket tabloids do cover stories. Time elapsed: One to two days.
Pop culture becomes the story. Media coverage and Internet chatter is the same as follows a popular reality TV show. People take sides with and against victims, villains and heroes. Everyone becomes a celebrity. Journalists – many of them ticked off for being played -- investigate school transcripts, arrest records and anonymous tips. Web sites pop up. Talk shows devote whole hours. Authorities launch formal investigations. Politicians express concern. Somebody announces a book.
Media critics blame the news media. News media blame consumers. Consumers find Balloon Boy Halloween costumes on the Internet.
Total time elapsed: About 72 hours, give or take.
(Photo: The New York Post reported that an online gaming company in San Francisco put “Balloon Boy Game” on the Internet in only about six hours after the news story went national.)
. . . . . . . . . .
in Celebrities, Colorado, Communications, Consumers, Crisis Management, Current Affairs, Denver, Image, Influence, Internet business, Journalism, New media, News Media, Newspapers, Old media, PR, Publicity, Social Media, Television, Twitter, USA, Weblogs / Blogs | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
|
|
The enduring but ailing BusinessWeek has been sold to Bloomberg LP in a cash deal that depending on who’s talking will either beef up the magazine or result in mass layoffs.
Bloomberg executives say they plan on substantially increasing the number of editorial pages in the magazine, which despite its prominence in the consumer business media market lost more than $40 million last year.
Up to now, privately held Bloomberg has made most of its $6.3 billion in annual revenues from leasing data terminals to investment firms and corporate customers.
. . . . . . . . . .
in Advertising, Branding, Journalism, Marketing, Money, New media, News Media, Old media, Public Relations, Strategy, USA | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
|
|
Former Rocky Mountain News finance editor, reporter and columnist David Milstead will be leaving Denver to join the Globe and Mail, Canada’s Toronto-based national newspaper.
The Rocky Mountain News was shut down in February, just shy of its 150th birthday, leaving the Denver Post as the city’s only remaining major daily.
Good luck, David.
. . . . . . . . . .




