HighTalk

Icon

Conversations with George F. Snell III on Media, PR & the Social Web

September 1, 2010 • 10:23 am 5

It Must be True. I Read it on the Internet!

Pinocchio or the new sports columnist for the Washington Post?

Here are a few things that I’ve learned on the Internet:

  • President Obama was born in Kenya and is not an American citizen
  • The Holocaust never happened.
  • The Democrats tried to create “death panels” for the elderly in their health care overhaul bill
  • The September 11 terrorist attacks were plotted and by the Bush administration so we could go to war in the Middle East
  • The British royal family assassinated Princess Diana

I know these things are true because I read them on the Internet.  And the Internet would never lie.  Would it?

I’m being facetious, of course.

The Internet isn’t a news source, but unfortunately, many people view it that way.  We rely too much on search engines directing us to the information we need without fully vetting where the information is coming from.  Just because it is written down on a website doesn’t mean the information is truthful or accurate.

That’s why everyone should be wary from relying on information from unknown sources.  It is one reason that the mainstream media will remain an important aspect of news gathering and journalism.  Say what you will about newspapers and news magazines, but they do an excellent job of vetting the information they publish.  They try – and don’t always succeed – in checking and double checking their facts before publication.  The reason it doesn’t always work is because it is extremely difficult work.

Blogs, Facebook status updates, tweets, and other websites don’t necessarily go through this same vetting process.  So the information they carry might not be factual.  That’s not to say that the posters are lying or deliberately trying to mislead – they simply may have made a mistake or relied on faulty information themselves.  That said there are also plenty of people and “sources” out there willing to purposefully mislead – or outright lie (hello, birthers).

When you come across information on a website you should approach it with skepticism and ask the following questions:

  • Who operates the website?  Who are they and what is their agenda?
  • Did they research the information themselves or rely on another source?  Where is the information coming from?
  • Why is the website publishing the information?

That’s why the news this week that Washington Post sports columnist Mike Wise purposefully lied in several tweets was so disappointing.  Wise said he executing an experiment to see how quickly misinformation could be spread online (as if we needed an experiment for that).  So he wrote several tweets that he made-up.  And, yes, people believed his lies.  What Wise failed to understand was that his readers and followers trusted him as a source for sports news because of who he is and where he works.

Why wouldn’t they believe him?  He was a journalist for a respected national newspaper.

There’s already too much misinformation on the Internet.  We don’t need our trusted news sources stooping to these levels and further undermining legitimate journalism – which is already under attack from many quarters.

The Post suspended Wise for a month.  He’s lucky to still have a job.  Lying is severe offense for a journalist.

How do you approach information you get from the Internet?  And what is your take on Wise and his “experiment”?

Links:

Top 10 Internet-fueled Conspiracies (via Salon)

Washington Post Suspends Columnist for Twitter Hoax (via New York Times)

Photo by Camera Obscurist (via Flickr)

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Content Creation, Journalism, Media Relations, Social Media , , , , , , ,

July 19, 2010 • 11:11 am 1

Using Social Media for Media Relations

Media relations is now social media relations.

The conversations on social media usually focus on direct-to-consumer marketing or on one-on-one customer service.  One area often neglected is how to use social media to influence the mainstream press.

Remember the mainstream press?  You know – ABC News, CNN, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the thousands of newspapers, trade and industry journals and magazines.

Yes, they still exist and, yes, they still pack a ton of influence.

The five largest newspapers in the U.S. have a combined circulation of more than six million readers and the top five magazines a combined circulation of more than 69 million.  Those are hefty numbers.  And they don’t take into consideration a recent study by Pew Research Center showing that 99 percent of blog links reference mainstream media sources.

That said there is no doubt that mainstream media is on a downward slide.  Circulation and revenue numbers continue to decline.  More than 14,000 journalists were laid off in 2009 and more than 1,800 have been cut loose in 2010.

As a result, there are fewer journalists to pitch stories to and the journalists who remain are overworked.  So for companies and PR agencies looking to connect with the press, the old-fashioned email and telephone pitches are less effective.

Journalists are looking for value.  They need stories that are compelling for their readers, but also fit within their beats and coverage areas.  Weeding through dozens of pitches a day – most of which need to be deleted because they are outside of their coverage or interest areas – wastes valuable time.  They also need new and dynamic content for their own web sites and blogs.

As a former journalist, I can tell you that the majority of reporters and editors don’t dislike PR people.  They dislike sloppy and unprofessional PR people.  PR people who provide value and help them get their jobs done are considered go-to sources.

Here are three ways that social media can help.

Twitter

Follow every journalist and publication that covers your industry (use services like Muck Rack to find journalists on Twitter).  You can use TweetDeck or another desktop or mobile application to help you segment the journalists into manageable groups.  Twitter gives PR people a real-time view into what stories, ideas and content are captivating the journalists they want to pitch.  Journalists often use Twitter to help them research and write articles and blog posts.

This observation is backed up by recent studies.  A survey of journalists by Cision/GSPM found that 52 percent of reporters now use Twitter as part of their jobs.  And a study by PRWeek found that 37 percent of journalists are required by their publications to maintain Twitter accounts.

Simply following the journalists will give any PR person insightful information for pitching.  But take it a step further.  Talk with the journalists on Twitter.  Retweet their articles and blog posts, ask questions on the content, participate in discussions, make observations or just say hello.  This type of engagement strengthens the relationship and shows the journalist that you are interested in the industry and have something of value to add.

Facebook

Many journalists use Facebook to connect with sources and do research for stories. In fact, the Cision/GSPM study found 65 percent of journalists use Facebook for their work. Connecting with a journalist via Facebook is a terrific way to build a better relationship – and also a more efficient way to communicate with them.  Rather than email, you can now post information on their wall, direct message or send a private message to their inbox.

And like Twitter, journalists will often reach out to Facebook friends for help and information for stories.

Blogging

Corporations have missed the boat on blogging – meaning that too many don’t do it.  Not only is blogging one of the most powerful ways to connect directly with customers, but it is another avenue to connect with the mainstream press. Blogging ideas, news, observations and tips about the industry is an effective way to connect with journalists covering the same market.

The PRWeek study noted that 39 percent of journalists are now required to blog for their publications.  The Cision/GSPM study said that 89 percent of journalist cite blogs and use information from them in their news stories.  Journalists are blogging – so why aren’t more corporations and PR people? Commenting back and forth and linking to material on blogs is the way many people know connect via the web.

Blogging is also different than writing an article.  Journalists need both kinds of stories now – stories for the print publications and stories for their blogs.  Help them in both channels.

Links:

List of largest U.S. Newspapers (via Wikipedia)

Largest Magazines in the U.S.

Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism study

Journalist lay-offs in U.S. (via Papercuts)

Muck Rack

TweetDeck

Social Media’s Staggering Influence on Journalists

Photo by Webtreats (via Flickr)

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Content Creation, Journalism, Media Relations, Newspapers, Public Relations, Public Relations Consulting, Social Media , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 8, 2010 • 3:58 pm 5

Tweet Ends 20-year CNN Career

Mistakes were tweeted.

Octavia Nasr is now the former Senior Editor of Mideast Affairs for CNN.  The 20-year veteran of CNN lost her job after controversy erupted over the following tweet:

“Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah…One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect alot.”

As you may or may not know Hezbollah is considered by many countries – including the United States – to be a terrorist organization.  They have been linked by the U.S. government to suicide attacks that have killed hundreds of people, including U.S. citizens and military.  Hezbollah is alleged behind the 1983 truck bombing attacks in Beirut that murdered 299 French and American soldiers.

Fadlallah was the spiritual leader and Grand Ayatollah of Hezbollah.  He also hated the U.S. and Israel and regularly spoke in favor of terrorism against both countries.

CNN immediately had Nasr remove the tweet, but not before it went viral on Twitter and in the blogosphere.  According to the Guardian newspaper: “The Simon Wiesenthal Center in the US released a statement demanding Nasr ‘apologise to all victims of Hezbollah terrorism whose loved ones don’t share her sadness over the passing of one of Hezbollah’s giants.’”

Nasr apologized for the tweet calling it “simplistic” and admitting that she had made a bad judgment call.

She said in a post on CNN’s blog that the limitations of Twitter’s 140-character platform placed her tweet outside the context of what she meant.  She said she admired Fadlallah’s stance for the rights of Muslim women and his advocacy for ending honor killings (a practice among some devout Muslims of murdering female family members for bringing dishonor to the family).

She also condemned Fadlallah’s support of terrorism.  And ended her statement with:

“Sayyed Fadlallah. Revered across borders yet designated a terrorist. Not the kind of life to be commenting about in a brief tweet. It’s something I deeply regret.”

Clearly, Nasr made a mistake.  But mistakes happen, especially in the world of daily TV journalism and in the real-time world of social networking.

I often caution my clients to expect mistakes when using social networks.  It isn’t “if” a mistake will happen, but “when.”  You are judged on how you deal with these mistakes more than on whether you make them.

Should Nasr have been fired after 20 years with CNN?  Was her offense that egregious, especially after her apology and explanation?

I don’t think so.  CNN should reinstate her and take a stand that reporters (even famous ones) are human beings and sometimes they make bad calls.  Be decisive and admit to mistakes when they happen.  But firing a loyal employee after two decades of services is harsh and punitive – and sends the wrong message.

What do you think?

Links:

Octavia Nasr’s Twitter account

Wikipedia entry on Hezbollah

Wikipedia entry on 1983 Beirut attack

Guardian story on Nasr’s firing

Wikipedia entry on honor killings

Nasr’s blog post at CNN explaining her tweet

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Journalism, Media Relations, Social Media , , , , , , , , , ,

June 2, 2010 • 9:53 am 0

Newspaper Revenues Continue to Plummet

What do newspapers have in common with dinosaurs?  They once both ruled the world, but eventually went extinct.

Where oh where will the newspaper go?

Yes, newspapers are still with us.  But for how long?  The Associated Press recently reported on the first quarter 2010 revenues for the industry.  It was ugly: Ad revenue dropped 10 percent to $6 billion

This was the smallest year-over-year dive in nearly three years, but still a significant double digit decrease nonetheless.  As the AP noted, the harsh reality is that in 2006 the first quarter revenues for newspapers were nearly $12 billion.  Ad revenues in the four years since have been slashed nearly in half.

I dubbed 2009 the year of the Great Media Collapse – as print magazines and newspapers already damaged by the web struggled to survive at the height the global economic collapse.  And there’s no doubt that 2009 was a terrible one – a large number of magazines and newspapers going belly up and more than 15,000 jobs in the industry vaporized (including almost 6,000 reporters and editors).

But earlier this year, it looked like the massive cuts in the industry might have right-sized newspapers for 2010 – but that is looking like nothing more than wishful thinking.

Newspapers continue their downward spiral, yet cling to their outdated revenue model.  The industry needs to start innovating fast – moving operations to the web and figuring out new ways to monetize before it is too late.

What do you think?  Are newspapers doomed to follow dinosaurs into extinction?

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Journalism, Media Relations, Newspapers , , , ,

April 28, 2010 • 8:06 am 3

Is Bloomberg the Future of Journalism?

Bloomberg wants to sell you some information.

The New York Times recently reported on the uncomfortable fit between Bloomberg News and its new print magazine purchase: BusinessWeek.

You may recall that Bloomberg bought BusinessWeek back in October for the price of a New York City condo ($5 million).

The Times calls it an “uneasy” marriage.  But I sense they’re just being polite.

What we’re witnessing with Bloomberg’s takeover of BusinessWeek (more than 120 BusinessWeek reporters and editors shown the exit door) is nothing short of the death of old-school journalism.

And, well, the birth – or at least the coronation – of something else.  New school journalism?  Internet age journalism?  Call it what you want, but the ramifications are enormous.  Think for a moment about this passage from the Times‘ piece:

“Every [Bloomberg] writer has a “dashboard” where the metrics determining his compensation — any scoops, hits an article attracts — are tracked.”

The article goes on to note that “At Bloomberg News… writers’ salaries are tied, among other factors, to how many “market-moving” articles they have produced…”

Then there’s this anecdote:

“One speaker was the head of Bloomberg’s “speed desk,” who was especially proud, according to people at the meeting, when the desk published a headline seconds ahead of Reuters, and a young trader had made enough money from that lead alone to buy a Hummer.  A BusinessWeek employee raised her hand. Why, she asked, would a journalist be proud of that?”

These passages showcase a radical departure from the way traditional journalists are compensated – or even the way in which they think about their roles.  When I was a journalist, my compensation was never determined by how much news I “sold.”  Or how many eyeballs read my stories.   And I certainly didn’t have my compensation goals scrolling on the screen in front of me.   That was a secondary consideration to the greater cause of journalism – public affairs and the greater good of society.

This quote by Finley Peter Dunne used to be the unofficial motto of the journalist:

“My business is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

Bloomberg has changed the goal of journalism and the motivators.  And that’s because at its core, Bloomberg isn’t really about journalism.  It’s about information and selling it like a commodity.  The Bloomberg writer is tasked with moving the information or – in other words – selling the product.

That’s why the speed desk writer was impressed that his story allowed a trader to buy a new Hummer.  His information benefited his customer – and got him a larger bonus check at the end of the year.

That’s a different motivation than the traditional journalist who wants his stories to help in the betterment of society (and maybe win a Nobel or Pulitzer Prize).

Bloomberg’s influence is mirrored in what is happening on blogs and online news outlets.  Many bloggers use analytics to measure the impact of stories – how many people read it?  How many times was it forwarded or shared?  How much time did people spend reading it?  How many comments did it generate?

These analytics are more important than the bigger considerations of traditional journalism: Is the news accurate and true?  Is it objective and fair?  And does it enlighten the public?

This sea change is being illustrated in Bloomberg’s takeover of BusinessWeek – and the move product mentality of many blogs.

What do you think?  Is this the evolution of journalism?  Is Bloomberg’s model a good thing or a bad thing?

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Blogging, Journalism, Media Relations , , , , , , , ,

April 22, 2010 • 9:02 am 0

Target Pistols Not Cluster Bombs

This method will only blow yourself up.

Repeat after me.

“I will not send a generic, mass-produced email pitches to bloggers.”

In fact, you shouldn’t send a generic, mass-produced emails to anyone.  There’s a name for that type of communications.

It’s called Spam.

And what do most people do with Spam?  They delete it.

The cluster bomb approach no longer works.  Target pistols are the way to go.

A colleague of mine in Chicago recently shared how a a group of SAEs sent out emails for an event to well-connected social media users in the Windy City.  Yes, the invitation had all the pertinent information: where, when and why.  But the most dramatic aspect of the email pitch was the focus on who was getting the invitation.

The invite was custom built and researched for each individual and contained the following information:

  • References to the blogger’s social circle and who they frequently conversed with and retweeted on Twitter.  It also made reference to folks on Twitter that the invitee and the invited shared.
  • The invitation noted if the person was the “mayor” of specific locations from Foursquare.  In other words, they took the time to figure out what types of places the blogger liked to visit.
  • They referred to posts, comments and reactions from the blogger’s blog that were relevant to the event that they were inviting her to.

As my esteemed colleague noted: the email pitches took a lot of extra time, effort and research.  But guess what?  It was worth it because it worked.  The bloggers appreciated the effort and felt that they were being contacted by someone who understand them and their blog.

This is how media and blogger relations is done now.

Target pistols – NOT cluster bombs.

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Blogging, Public Relations, Public Relations Consulting , , , , , , ,

April 5, 2010 • 8:24 am 1

The Age of Post-Modern Journalism

Can flat world believers trust any newspaper with "Globe" in the title?

In a political back-and-forth on Facebook recently, I cited and linked to a New York Times article.  My colleague retorted: “Sorry, I don’t subscribe to the notion that the New York Times prints impartial news.”  This is from a college-educated public relations executive.

I must admit that it threw me.

There is no doubt that the New York Times has left-leaning editorial and op-ed pages, but it’s news coverage is among the finest in the world (which is why it has won 101 Pulitzer Prizes since 1918 – more than any other newspaper in history).  It is far from perfect, but when did we reach the point where news articles in the Times were considered suspect?

And if news in the New York Times can’t be trusted then what news sources can be?

Have we truly reached the age of Post-Modern Journalism?

Postmodernism, among other things, is the denial of objective truths, so Post-Modern Journalism would be the denial of basic facts.  A state in which baseline facts are in constant dispute.  Post-Modern Journalism then is what happens when we – as a society – can no longer agree to these facts. When journalists can no longer collect, verify and report on the facts of a story – because the facts are in a constant state of contradiction – then we have reached the point of Post-Modern Journalism.

The result is multiple “news sources” claiming the mantel of objective journalism but with varying definitions of what the baseline”facts” and “truths” are.

The current political landscape provides an excellent example.  How can journalists even begin to report on the policies and activities of President Obama and his administration without being accused of biased when there is such dispute about the basic, underlying facts about the president?  A recent Harris Poll (which – in classic Post-Modern Journalism – is also under dispute) found that:

  • 67 percent of Republicans (and 40 percent of Americans overall) believe that President Obama is a socialist
  • 57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim
  • 45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was “not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president”
  • 38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is “doing many of the things that Hitler did”
  • 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama “may be the Antichrist.”

It is any wonder that so many people no longer believe what they read and see from news organizations when we’ve reached this point?  When basic facts about the origin and political beliefs of our highest elected official are under dispute how can we trust anything written about his policies?

A reader who thinks Obama is a left-leaning, centrist Democrat from Chicago might trust the New York Times, but certainly not the one who believes Obama is a foreign-born Muslim socialist with Nazi aspirations (and how Obama can be both a socialist and fascist at the same time when the ideologies sit at opposite ends of the political spectrum is not explained).

The result is news organizations with different factual foundations – and ever skewing toward their audience’s perspectives.

In simple terms: FOX-News vs. MSNBC.

Journalism as noise machine for a point of view.  FOX-News, for example, reports on healthcare from a perspective that the bill is fundamentally unAmerican, unnecessary and communist while MSNBC sees the bill as inherently American, necessary and humanitarian.  So we get “death panels” vs. “universal healthcare” when the bill is actually neither.

There’s been many pixels spilled worrying about how the Internet is destroying journalism, but this state of Post-Modern Journalism may be the real threat (and certainly the Internet plays an important role in this divisiveness).

What do you think?  Can journalism be objective?  Should it at least strive for objectivity?  Or is this state of Post-Modern Journalism a permanent condition?

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Journalism, Media Relations , , , , , , , , ,

January 22, 2010 • 8:22 am 2

Is Free Content Just a Stage in the Internet’s Growth?

Free is a lousy business model.

The New York Times announced this week that it will begin to charge for content – again – in 2011.  The Times hasn’t mapped out a plan on how it will accomplish this, but it brings up a larger question:

Is free content just a stage we’re going through in the evolution of the Internet?

In other words – is “free” sustainable?

If we look back at the dot-com era as a guide post there’s an argument to be made that our current state of “free content” on the web might not be permanent, but simply a nascent stage in the growth of the Internet. That conclusion can be supported by evidence of what happened to online retail during the dot-com phase of the Internet’s growth.

Those were the heady days of the dot-com bubble when every product had a .com after its name and its own online store: Furniture.com, Pets.com, Toys.com, and Jewelry.com to name but a few.  Many roared into prominence with grand promises of “free forever” – from shipping to returns to products.

I consulted with a company called Intranets.com that provided free intranets to small and mid-size companies.  Intranets.com made “free forever” part of their messaging – until they implemented a monthly subscription fee.

Remember HomePoint.com?  They sold furniture on the web and promised free returns.  But returning a 82-inch, $2,000 couch turns out to much more expensive than returning a DVD.  They went out of business (and they weren’t alone).

All the promises of free this or that turned out to be a lousy business model for online retail and its already razor thin margins.  The result was the dot-com bust that rose like a mushroom cloud over Silicon Valley in 2000.  Now there were other problems for the dot-coms other than the promises of free, but the cheaper and faster mantra certainly added to their problems.

So that brings us to today and our state of free content.  Content cost money, yet the media industry – with only a few notable exceptions – has been giving away their most valuable commodity for free – for years.

And that is no longer working out very well – as the Great Media Collapse of the past year has clearly shown.

The New York Times wants to change that by charging for its content.  This hasn’t worked in the past.  The Times tried to charge for premium content a few years back and it bombed.  This time, however, they may have learned a thing or two from the failed experience.  Hopefully, they are in the process of developing a strategy that will benefit both them and their readers.  We’ll see once they roll out the details.

Will other media outlets follow them into the pay model?  News Corps seems ready to jump into the river with the Times.  Will there be others?  Can media outlets really afford NOT to start charging?  Reporting news takes manpower and manpower costs a lot of money.  You can’t afford to send reporters and photographers to Haiti, for example, to conduct in-depth reporting on the earthquake if you don’t charge readers for the content.

It’s a very simple equation.  If media outlets don’t start charging for their efforts – they will continue to fail.  That’s just the way it is.  I disagree with pundits like Jeff Jarvis who believe that web content wants and needs to be free.  Jarvis warns that if the New York Times charges its readers – its readership will shrink.  Well, no kidding.  But it’s better than the alternative – bankruptcy.

There’s another reason why free content is a bad idea.  Value.  People don’t place a premium on items they get for free.  For example, a report on NPR’s Marketplace yesterday on healthcare and unions illustrated this point perfectly.  A dentist’s office for union employees had skyrocketing cancellation rates because the union members received their treatments for basically no cost.  When patients had to pay a larger fee for canceling an appointment the cancellation rate dropped from 25 to 5 percent.

According to the report: “When it’s only $6 (to cancel), there’s very little incentive, if it’s not convenient, for them to keep the appointment.”  In other words, people don’t place a value on free items and that leads to waste and a dismissal.

The same can be said for news organizations when they give away their content.  When it’s free, it has less value.  People don’t appreciate it.

I don’t want newspapers and magazines to end up in the same boat as the failed dot-coms.

Don’t get me wrong.  I don’t want to pay for what I’ve been receiving for free either.  It hurts.  But I also understand that if I want to read excellent journalism written by professional editors and reporters – then I’m going to have to open up my wallet and pay for it.

The key is finding a paid content strategy that will actually work.

Unfortunately, that’s a HUGE challenge and no one has quite figured it out yet.  Here’s hoping the New York Times has a plan that can actually work.

What are your thoughts on free content? Can paid models work on the Internet?

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Content Creation, Journalism, Media Relations, Newspapers , , , , , , , , , ,

January 20, 2010 • 11:05 am 2

Traditional Media is Social Media

Traditional media has become so technology savvy that robots now do all the reporting.

The idea that there’s traditional media and social media and that a gigantic wall not unlike the Great Wall of China divides them is one of the most persistent myths in communications and marketing.

It is, of course, completely untrue.

This may have been the case back in 2005, but it isn’t the case in 2010.

Traditional media – and by traditional I mean newspapers, magazines, radio, and television – is social media.  There are few media outlets in existence that don’t have a web site filled with social media components – from Twitter feeds to commenting and sharing.  Most traditional media sites are chock full of multimedia elements – videos, photographs, charts, audio, and even slide shows.

Readers can share content via email or through multiple social bookmarking sites.  They can comment on stories.  They can watch videos.  They can download audio files.  They can rate or rank stories.

Despite cries to contrary, traditional media outlets now get it.  They are as social – if not more so – than many social media outlets.

Look no further than BusinessWeek Online as an example.  BusinessWeek Online offers the following:

  • Blog Network: BusinessWeek (and now Bloomberg) reporters and editors are blogging daily on dozens of different topics.  Blogs in the network include The Auto Beat (all about car manufacturing),   Bye of the Apple (all about the technology and gadgets coming out of Apple), and Traveler’s Check (all about news and trends in the travel industry) and many other topics from business in Asia to politics.
  • The Debate Room: A forum that looks at the pros and cons of different issues from CEO compensation to green energy.  Readers can weigh in on the issues via comments.  They can also suggest ideas for different debates.  The idea behind The Debate Room is to provide an online forum where readers can discuss red-hot issues.
  • Podcast Platform: Going on a long business trip and want to download stories on your smart phone?  BusinessWeek offers all kinds of interesting content via its podcast platform.  Content includes business round-ups and audio versions of cover stories.
  • Video Channel: BusinessWeek provides all kinds of video content that can be accessed right from the first page.  Interviews and stories.  Analysis and trends.  The videos can also be downloaded onto smart phones.
  • Reader Forums: BusinessWeek allows readers to have a real voice at it’s “What’s Your New Story Idea” – new take on the idea of a reader’s forum.  Here readers can talk directly with editors by pitching stories.  One pitch a week gets selected and written about.
  • Interactive Galleries: The magazine also has a robust feature that visually tells stories through slideshows.  Using photographs and informative captions, the slideshows are an interactive way to narrate a story – everything from how to survive a recession to to chef’s showing how to open a restaurant.

All of these features can be shared and commented on.

BusinessWeek is no different than most magazines and newspapers.  All of them are engaged more with readers – they are blogging, using multimedia and allowing readers to share and comment.

The fact is: all media is now social media.

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Journalism, Media Relations, Social Media , , , , , ,

November 20, 2009 • 11:13 am 4

The Great Media Collapse of 2009: Part 2

"Hi Gang! Don't mind me. I've come to collect the dead journalists."

Back in March I predicted 2009 to be the year of the Great Media Collapse.

That the powerful forces of the global economic meltdown, plummeting advertising costs, and the shift of readers from print to the web would force seismic changes on traditional media.

It’s been even worse than I thought.  Are we sure it isn’t 2012?

The cherry on top of this dismal, depressing year for print media may have been the ugly day at BusinessWeek yesterday when about 130 reporters, many BusinessWeek veterans, got the axe from new owner Bloomberg.  Bleak news for a group of talented writers and editors.

The 80-year-old business magazine has always been a top echelon publication with great writers.  Yesterday’s cuts included some of the biggest names in business journalism: Stephen Baker, Steve Hamm, Steve Wildstrom, Heather Green, Jon Fine and many others.  These are top-notch journalists who have come to define the voice, tone and quality that is BusinessWeek.  It’s difficult to imagine the publication without them.

(Media Bistro has collected the departing tweets of the fired BusinessWeek writers).

This, of course, followed the fire basement sale of BusinessWeek to Bloomberg last month.  A sale reported to have been for about $5 million, but may have been as low as $2 million.

Unfortunately, BusinessWeek isn’t alone in the Great Media Collapse.  In fact, Paper Cuts, an online site, that tracks layoffs at newspapers and magazines says more than 14,500 journalists have been laid-off  or bought out this year.  Some of the highlights (or low lights):

  • The Associated Press announced the lay-offs of about 90 reporters, editors, and photographers this week while also closing four U.S. bureaus. It was an overall reduction of about 10 percent of its workforce, according to PaidContent.
  • The Wall Street Journal shuttered its Boston bureau and cut nine members of the staff – including the long-time reporter (30 years!) Bill Bulkeley, one of the best in the business.
  • Forbes cut even more staff in October after already dismissing more than 100 employees throughout the year, according to the New York Times.
  • The Times Co. has reduced staff by the hundreds at the New York Times and the Boston Globe this year.  The Globe has gotten the brunt of it and was almost sold for the cost of a hotdog and a beer at Fenway Park (well, maybe, a bit more).  Word is that the Times will slash another 100 jobs before New Year’s Day.
  • Fortune magazine reduced its publishing schedule from 25 issues to 18 issues a year.
  • Gourmet magazine, the bible for food lovers, shutdown in October after a run of 69 years.
  • Portfolio magazine, which attracted some big name reporters, shutdown in April.
  • The Rock of Boston – the legendary rock radio station in Boston – WBCN went silent after 41 years.
  • The 146-year-old Seattle Post-Intelligencer stopped its printing presses and closed March.
  • The Baltimore Examiner shuttered in February.
  • The Detroit Free Press and Detroit News reduced their publication scheduled and focus online.

The list of layoff and closures goes on and on – from Sports Illustrated reducing staff to the closing of Domino and PC Magazine. Where all these journalists are going to land is another question.  Are their magazines, newspapers or online publications that are actually hiring?  Will they become part of the underpaid and overworked freelancer community?  Are we really returning to the age where writers are paid by the word?

There is little doubt that journalism as we know it is on the verge of collapse.  This doesn’t mean it won’t recover or that it won’t end being redefined.  It just means that it won’t look the way it used to.  It still remains to be seen if blogs and online publications can provide the quality news and analysis that newspapers and magazines have provided for more than a century.

So far most online publications still reply on mainstream sources to feed their own insatiable publishing schedules.  And they haven’t proven to have the quality assurance, fact-checking, and professionalism of most traditional news gathering operations.

So where do we find ourselves as 2009 groans to a close?  In the midst of the greatest threat to journalism in its history. Printed formats are collapsing, broadcasting is fragmented, media companies continue to rely on failed business models, journalism staffs being slashed to pieces, content creation being pushed to freelancers and citizen journalists, and more people relying on getting their “news” from dubious sources on the internet.

What do you think?  What is the future of journalism?  How do you view the Great Media Collapse of 2009?

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Journalism, Media Relations, Newspapers, Social Media , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

HighTalk Tweets

HighTalk on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter
    View George Snell's profile on LinkedIn
    Subscribe to me on FriendFeed
    Add to Technorati Favorites

    Archives

    Creative Commons License

    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.