Yes, it’s finally happened. I’m now on YouTube. I was recently part of an amazing evening at Ignite Bristol – an import from the Ignite concept that first happened in Seattle in 2006. As anyone who has been through any Net.Mentor training will know, I hate PowerPoint with a passion. However, the concept of a timed 5 minutes with 20 slides in quite a buzz and some of the presentations on the first evening were stimulating, moving, funny or just completely off the wall. In the end, I went for the serious topic of handling crisis, but I hope it was light enough to be all of the above. You be the judge…
Posts Tagged ‘Media’
Professionals still have the journalistic edge
Thursday, December 10th, 2009The role of the citizen journalist is clearly here to stay and, with the speed of delivery and monitoring of breaking/trending topics through the social media, this role is only ever likely to be strengthened.
However, this doesn’t mean the end of the line for the professional journalist – a point well made in Jeremy Porter’s recent post. Having trained and worked as a broadcast journalist, I know that the ability to point a mobile phone in the direction of a major event happening in front of you doesn’t automatically make you a journalist. It creates plenty of informed observers and that is only to be welcomed if, as in the case of Ian Tomlinson’s death during the G20 clashes in London, observational reality can become a conduit to justice.
Major incidents, such as the Paddington rail crash, have plenty of eye witnesses who were only too keen to share their experiences on what was happening – although social media was in its infancy in 1999 when that particular event happened. In that case there were BBC journalists travelling on the trains involved and it was they who called on to provide objective, descriptive and relatively balanced reports at the scene within minutes of the event and in subsequent news bulletins.
Although professional journalists may not always be immediately on hand for every incident, it is a safe assumption that during major, newsworthy events (the Hudson river plane crash being another example), the news-hungry public may turn to citizen journalism social media for their instant gratification, but will still rely on the professionals to undertake the gathering, filtering, editing, summarising and opinion-forming to deliver the ‘bigger picture’.
Long may it continue!
BBC Drop the ball over Griffin
Friday, October 30th, 2009The screaming headlines from the Sun to the Guardian. The hours of broadcast from Today to CNN. And the final revelation that…oh my, Nick Griffin is a fascist.
To be honest, I didn’t want to add to the millions of words already devoted to this subject and fuel the flames of his publicity. But having re-watched the BBC Question Time programme and the pre and post media frenzy, I have been left feeling numbed by the ineptitude of the UK’s public service broadcaster.
Griffin is an MEP, he is elected, we live in a democracy, the BBC were right to broadcast.
Sadly, it went downhill from there. The carefully selected panel was no surprise (although Jack Straw was surprisingly poor), neither was the make-up of the audience. What did surprise me was just how dramatically Dimbleby and the producers prostituted themselves in their desire to ensure we knew just how ignorant and bigotted Griffin is…for more than 30 minutes…without cessation. It took possibly 3 minutes for the point to be made (perhaps 5 for the less intelligent members of the audience). Job done.
What was completely missed was the fact that Griffin, and his even more disturbing side-kick Andrew Brons, are in a position to influence European legislation – the implications of which reach far beyond just British shores. If Dimbleby hadn’t allowed the red mist and the ill advice of the BBC’s editors and senior PRs to descend, he would have realised that had he conducted the remaining 55 minutes of the programme in the usual format, Griffin and, more importantly, his party would have been exposed as the political danger they truly represent.
The Nazi thugs will always vote for Griffin and his ilk because of their misguided values. It’s the so-called ‘protest voters’, who apparently have no-one else to vote for, that needed to be shown the true implications of what they have done by witnessing not the moral bankruptcy of the individual, but the political immorality and ineptitude of the party for which he was acting as a representative on the night.
There is no doubt in my mind that had he become imbroiled in the standard of political debate usually engendered by a ‘normal’ Question Time, he would have buried, beyond any hope of redemption, both his party and himself at every turn. Instead, the coffin lid was left ajar and, dracula-like, he squeezed out and into a world of PR opportunities for himself and his party.
The panel and audience may have felt a sense of smug satisfaction at the end of the evening, but the fact that fascist extremists have been allowed to walk away with even the slightest glimmer of opportunity means the BBC has very little to be satisfied about. I thought Dimbleby was the best man for the job. He blew it!
Flat Earth Spin
Tuesday, March 4th, 2008The old chestnut – who depends on whom, PR or Journalist – has been repackaged, re-spun and reprinted in a new book by Nick Davies. “Flat Earth News” has engendered massive current debate in the UK and beyond. An entire edition of BBC’s You and Yours was devoted to the subject, and included Nick Davies on the programme. By their own admission, the BBC had themselves succumbed to Chatto and Windus’ PR machine in devoting an entire hour to the subject.
So is reproducing media releases without checking the facts lazy journalism? Yes. Is it the way all journalists work? Unlikely.
According to UKwatch.net the research behind the book from Cardiff University’s media boffins is a depressingly true reflection of current journalism. I’ve been both a broadcast journalist and a PR (apparently I’m supposed to be a Flack, whatever that is). On occasions I’ve been both at the same time (the worst of all worlds)!
I’ve worked in local radio newsrooms in recent years and received the “are you mad?” looks when I’ve suggested actually stepping outside the office to go on a story, rather than settling for a 20 sec clip on the ‘phone. Yes, journalism has changed. There are is less money, fewer staffers and double or treble the amount of content required. That’s Nick Davies’ point. Quality of journalism has to suffer. But is it the journalists’ fault?
PRs hold a precious commodity – news – and good PRs know how to create news and make their story more attractive and newsworthy than someone else’s. Does that make them bad people? Does it prevent journalists from using their editorial judgement and whatever investigative skills remain open to them to look beneath the surface? I don’t think so.
Naked PR’s Jennifer Mattern turns her guns on bloggers who now seem to be demanding more relaxed and ‘promotional’ releases to be issued by newswires because this is the kind of stuff bloggers want. I’m with her and PRWeb. If bloggers want credibility, they should work as hard as any other journalists, regardless of the style or medium. In fact, looking at some of the PRWeb releases, if this is the kind of stuff they want – and the kind of things PRs believe is news – then they deserve each other.
At the end of last week, I gave a lecture to a group of young PRs on briefing spokespeople. The keynote speaker was Gito Harri, who had just delivered his last piece to camera for network BBC TV news before becoming a senior media strategist at PR giants Fleishman Hillard. The money certainly had an influence, but I wonder how long it will be before his carefully honed journalistic skills become blunted by the constant chipping of unrealistic client expectations and under-resourced journalist contacts.
Turning things upside down
Friday, February 29th, 2008It’s not often that I’m stopped in my tracks by creativity, but as a content writer I was genuinely moved by a simple piece of writing that became a TV advert. Highlighted by the Blackbelt Dojo team, this advert for Argentinian Presidential candidate Lopez Murphy is simple and obvious for the first half, and with a blindingly obvious but cleverly revealing and powerful second half.
Most importantly it has made me stop, think and consider perspective. The art of good writing is still alive.
Out of the Woods
Friday, January 25th, 2008I was reassured by Jerry Johnson’s take on Tiger Woods’ response to the unfortunate comment by golf pundit Kelly Tilghman who suggested that the only way his younger competitors might get ahead of him is to “lynch him in a back alley.” In particular, Jerry states: “The silly thing is to think that when you offend, you control the ability to forgive. You don’t. That lies with those whom you’ve presumably offended.”
Whenever I get involved in crisis management – whether lecturing or working with clients – the key things I always stress are that in a crisis you can only deal with what’s in your control, and know who your allies are. What is interesting about the Tiger Woods situation is that he was her ally and that definitely wasn’t in her control.
It’s a truism that in a crisis you really find out who your friends are – in some cases they even come with their own brand!
Today’s news comes from….
Thursday, January 17th, 2008An item by Steve Hewlett on the BBC’s Today programme – admittedly not particularly easy listening given a convoluted writing style and constant background voiceover – did clarify some thoughts regarding journalists and online information. The Today intro describing online radio as a “threat” and Hewlett (tongue in cheek I hope) believed that online news items gaining the greatest hits are those most desired by the “great unwashed”. I had to chuckle at the implication that only network news providers are the true filters of news with gravitas, and that they alone are leading the crusade to educate the masses. And in reality – a serious point made by the item – where is popular news now being sourced?
Native Edge’s Andrew Arnold picked up an interesting blog on research by US Comms agency Brodeur on the use of blogs by journalists as a source of information. Jerry Johnson, Brodeur’s Exec VP who lead the research, has also received considerable comment on the stats after they were revealed at a conference.
In my own recent blog about objectivity I talked about journalists writing their own blogs – possibly under a degree of coercion from over-eager editors. What is certainly clear from this research is that journalists see the blogosphere as a vital source of information – certainly in North America – and I have little doubt that this is the case in the UK. Call it lazy journalism or just plain commonsense, but the research showed that more than 78% of journos saw bogs as a source of stories and angles, with nearly as many using blogs as a way of testing the tone of discussions on a subject. Interestingly nearly half also viewed blogs as a source of breaking news. Disturbingly, perhaps, one third saw blogs as a way of identifying and validating news sources. If this is true, then it would appear that journalists are standing up their stories based on an online persona. Certainly there are a significant number of bloggers with long and established reputations. But the thought of John Humphrys, logging on, bleary eyed to check his sources with Strumpette does add a certain frisson to the morning!
The subject of objectivity
Friday, January 11th, 2008Toni Falconi’s blog about objectivity and the relationship between journalists and PRs got me thinking about the old chestnut of who needs whom more – journalists or PRs. Sitting listening as an associate berated a local news editor because they ran an exclusive story too early made me realise that as with any other commodity, news is just that – a commodity that requires bargaining, negotiating and diplomacy skills on both sides. Toni Falconi talks about “Relative Objectivity” which can lead to a competitive advantage for both parties.
In reality, what we’re talking about here is the fine line that has been trodden for many years between the purveyors of commercial/corporate interest and the seekers of ‘truth’. Peddling a message and knowing when, how, and with whom it will resonate as a news or feature story is the stock in trade of any media relations expert. Getting ‘behind the spin’ and feeling the quality rather than the width is the art of any good journalist with an instinct for news and what their audience wants.
In my view it is understanding this relationship that ultimately creates the ‘relative objectivity’ that Falconi sees as the holy grail. The difficulty comes when the lines become blurred – when journalists are employed by the corporation or PRs become writers. At what point does objectivity become damaged goods? I have just finished a short article for a client which will be added to the feature section of a trade publication. There will be no byline and I have no qualms about writing the article because while it is a product piece I believe I retain enough journalistic integrity to make it interesting, relevant and informative to the reader. In this case a response code will clearly indicate that this has been written by the manufacturer. But there have been many occasions where, in my role as a PR I have been only too happy to volunteer my journalism skills to help out an editor with little time and too much space, allowing me the opportunity to slip in a carefully placed product mention or two. Is this just part of the sale – you helped me, I’ll help you? If so, where exactly does that leave the reader?
And where does this leave the journalist who, under increasing pressure from their paymasters, is expected to write a regular blog. Think Eddie Mair on the BBC PM Programme Sure, they’re journalists, it’s what they do. But isn’t the whole point of a blog that it’s a personal thing? Reading between the lines, there is an element of forced humour, whilst making sure that there’s some mention of applying for awards or getting into the Guardian newspaper. The same with guest blog spots – the latest post on Black Belt Dojo by Kirsty Glennie on social media is certainly interesting, but it doesn’t do Siemens any harm either (there, see, they’ve got another mention). I don’t have any issue with this at all providing everybody plays the game and, most importantly, the reader/listener understands who’s working for whom and where the line is crossed between the subjective shelf and objective checkout.
All you need is Dove
Monday, January 7th, 2008As reported by Brand Republic amongst others, it seems that the Beatles catalogue will finally become a plaything of the ad creatives. We’re talking the real deal here, not some sugar-coated, whizzed up version like the one on the Target ads, but every twang and crash from the Fab Four themselves. So, are we in for “All you Need is Dove”, or “We all live in an Orange Submarine”? Or will the the catalogue will be treated with care and sympathy?
It would appear that Sony and Michael Jackson’s ATV music, who co-own the rights, are set to auction-off ad usage of their Scouse silverware to the highest bidder. I’m at something of a loss to see who will benefit from a “brand partnership” – Sony/ATV, or the remaining mop tops? Clearly the partnership is off to a good start with Sony/ATV’s CEO Martin Bandier feeling he has a “moral obligation” to discuss uses of the catalogue with the Beatles members or their estates, despite having no legal need to seek their permission. Such magnanimous gestures should go a long way to reassuring them that the music will be well protected.
Don’t get me wrong – advertising creatives have used classic tunes to fantastic effect in the past, increasing both product and record sales at the same time – think Marvin Gaye, Levis 501 and Nick Kamen (not original according to Indra Sinha) and even Brad Pitt. Many up and coming bands are only to keen to have their latest track used to promote a well-cut piece of cloth, or provide the moody accompaniment to the latest youth hostel bloodfest.
But is the Beatles catalogue one step too far, or is my age just catching up with me? I just can’t quite stretch my democratic media ideals to Birds Eye and “Peas Peas Me”!
Media conspiracy or media naivety?
Friday, December 7th, 2007And so the David Abrahams story rumbles on in media land, with the Labour Party’s most visible “anonymous” donor now claiming that the conversation he had with a journalist from the Jewish Chronicle wasn’t actually an interview after all. It was interesting to hear JC Editor David Rowan on the BBC’s Today Programme doing a very good job of answering the “did David Abrahams give you permission to run the inteview” question without actually using the word “yes”.
But my issue is not with the JC – far from it. Is it just me or is this increasingly media-driven world of ours causing some chemical reaction which is making people less, not more, media savvy and increasingly naive? If you, as media hot property, receive a note posted through your letterbox by a journalist (according to Rowan) asking you to contact them and then hold a phone conversation with them in the form of questions being asked and answers being given (known to even the newest trainee journos as “an interview”), how on earth can you be shocked or even a little surprised that this subsequently appears in print? Worse still if you then receive media handling advice after the event telling you to backtrack (an educated guess on my part) when any journalist worth their salt will have verbatim or contemporaneous notes.
The 15 minutes of fame syndrome seems to have gone to the heads of media consultants as well as their clients. In the first of the BBC’s Inside Story series on Radio 4, Clarence Mitchell – advisor to the McCann family – launched a withering tirade on the Red Tops for their exploitation of a story based almost entirely on speculation (a fact readily admitted at the top of the programme by the journalists on the panel) and their treatment of the family. He was last heard backpedalling furiously as the Sun’s representative confronted him with fact that he was just the latest in a number of advisors who were only too happy to exploit the media to support the appeal to find Madeleine.
Media conspiracy? I don’t think so. Media naivety? hmmmm.