On being thankful

Happy Thanksgiving everyone! As I try to clean up my messy desk and head home for my wife’s wonderful thanksgiving feast–sharing it with all kids, their spouses and seven wonderful grandchildren, plus brothers, sisters, parents, nephews, nieces and on and on, I can’t help but express a bit of gratitude.

While I haven’t read Mitch Albom’s new book “Have a Little Faith” I heard him on a radio talk show and the host asked him the secret to happiness and if it was in the book. It is, and it was spoken by a dying rabbi if I recall the story. It was simply: be grateful for what you have. Sadly, we spend most of our waking lives thinking about what we don’t have, being miserable as we compare ourselves with others, working our behinds off to get ahead so we can have “just a little more,” and generally being cranky and unhappy because things don’t always go our way as we pursue the always just out of reach goal of contentment by grabbing onto the next hope.

I’m so glad for this day and that our leaders had the wisdom to set aside a day to think about all that we have rather than what we don’t have. I know that if I do a better job of practicing the discipline of gratitude some of the coldness and bitterness that too easily enters my heart and life will melt away.

Wishing all of you a very grateful and content Thanksgiving Day!

Is the era of free news on the internet ending?

It certainly looks that way if Rupert Murdoch, now the owner of Wall Street Journal, and Microsoft, the owner of the Google-alternative search engine named Bing, have their way.  Here’s the story from the Washington Post and Techcrunch and a take on it from Social Media analysis site Mashable.

The idea is media companies, led by Murdoch and WSJ, would strip their content from Google unless Google would anty up to pay them to provide searches to their content. Microsoft which is stooping to some desperation to try to take market share from Google has been exceptionally eager to say to Mr. Murdoch, hey, Bing will pay you.

What will happen? I agree with Erik Schonfeld of TechCrunch: Exclusive indexing goes against the Web’s inherent openness. Companies that try to curtail that openness don’t last long on the Web.

I think this very overt attempt to steal market share by violating the most basic tenet of the web which is free content for all is doomed and not only that, but puts Microsoft at some reputation risk. I’m not sure that Murdoch faces the same reputation risk as Microsoft in this. First, he doesn’t have to worry that much about ticking off the internet crowd as Microsoft does and who can blame a mainstream mogul from trying to figure out a way to stay in business? I hope that major news gathering organizations like WSJ find a way to survive and I think they will–but I don’t thing they will by violating basic values of the people they are trying to serve. Find another way, guys. This one is doomed.

An analysis of the Superfreakonomics debate

don’t have time to comment much as busy helping work a major response at the moment but this WSJ article captures much of what I was trying to say about this debate.

 

More examples of news via Twitter, plus: Is Social Media a fad?

I’ve been talking in my presentations quite a bit about how Twitter is how the mainstream is getting more of its news and how increasingly Twitter itself is spreading the news. Here’s another great example–the debris on the Bay bridge that snarled traffic for hours or more.

Thanks to Gabe, I was alerted to this YouTube video (nearly a million views so obviously I’m not the first to see it) that seeks to answer the question of whether or not Social Media is a fad. I think it is a great video, very well done and interesting accumulation of facts, but one thing keeps bothering me.

Why Social Media? Why not call it the internet, or even Web 2.0 like social media used to be called. After all, what is called social media today is really internet applications that have been very widely adopted and adopted in particular to help people do what they’ve been doing since hiding out in caves: connecting with each other talking about things that interest them. The internet as a series of related technologies makes that connecting possible in ways never dreamt of before. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube are all just examples of some of those related technologies that have gotten tremendous interest and public play. I can virtually guarantee that all things hot now in social media are already well on the way to becoming dodo birds (even Facebook growth has tailed off significantly and Twitters’ precipitously). That doesn’t mean that social media will go away. The real question ought to be is the internet a fad? But the answer to that is so obvious that obviously if someone did that they wouldn’t get a million views.

The best resource for social media and internet use policy

At least it is the best resource I’ve seen.

Here is a very extensive list of sample policy statements and policies in place at various prominent organizations.

I found it on a blog post providing some good advice about dealing with legal obstacles to social media use in organizations.

Obama and Fox News war–now this I just don’t get

There are only a couple of explanations I can come up with to explain why the Obama administration would declare open war on Fox News. Either the arrogance of power is so great that it has clouded what for the most part has been sterling political judgment. Or, the anger overbeing so stridently and consistently attacked has got the better of them.

It is one thing to express concern about Fox News’ brand of journalism and how it may be proving detrimental to the nature of political discussion in the US, but to go so far as Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod in saying it wasn’t even a news organization is really quite incredible to me. This, I would think would be true whether your perspective is of the right or the left.

If it is of the left, it totally misses one thing that has been happening with news in general and social media in particularly which is making it clear that objective reporting is gone, has been gone and may never have really existed. This judgment would be offensive, it seems to me, to the likes of Adrianna Huffington and many other political writers/reporters/bloggers, etc., who are championing the cause of reporting with a point of view. The Economist is one big exception in the decline of major news media, and there is not an article in that publication that doesn’t come at the topic with a strong slant and an editorial opinion completely embedded in the story. There is no apology and no need to–they make their biases and their mission completely known. But to suggest that because opinion is mixed with reporting the Economist is not a news organization would be ridiculous.

On the right, which I must say must be rejoicing with this turn of events, this attack only demonstrates what they have been saying for some time. Which is that the left-leaning news organizations such as New York Times, and major networks, have been pretending to be balanced and middle of the road when to any right winger it was clear they were far from balanced. Fox comes along and takes a quite different slant on the news. By doing so they demonstrate that being right or left is in the eye of the news viewer. In other words, if you are strongly right leaning Fox will appear fair and balanced, if you are left they will not, but New York Times will appear fair and balanced. Who is? Like the theory of relativity, it all depends on your own position and motion.

I would think that the likes of Axelrod and Emanuel would be sophisticated enough to have that understanding of media. To disparage Fox by declaring that all other media (more in line with their perspective perhaps) are legitimate news organizations, but Fox is not is not just insulting to the huge Fox audience (much bigger than the others) but also strikes me as naive. Nothing I would have ever thought to say about these very sophisticated and successful political operatives.

Like I said, the only explanation I can come up with is a weariness that overcame their good senses, or much worse, the first real sign of a frightening arrogance of power. I hope not. Somebody better call off this ill-conceived war. Mr. President, book your time on Hannity soon.

How social media is changing emergency and crisis communication

I blogged on this at emergencymgmt.com which is my blog more focused on government communication and emergency management. But, it may be of more general interest to those involved in crisis communication so, here it is. It’s my crisis management take-off on an excellent post by Soren Gordhamer on the five ways social media has changed our lives.

Dole drops lawsuit against filmmaker–more signs of the coming food wars

Food wars. I’ve suggested that anyone in agriculture, food production and distribution including those who regulate them should gird up their loins for a protracted battle over food safety. I’ll be following this for some time. Those who have been reading Crisisblogger know of my personal connection to this issue through the film Food, Inc.–now almost certain to garner an Academy nomination and one of the top grossing feature documentaries of all time.

My observation to those engaged in this (and I have some current clients so engaged) is to understand the new rules of transparency. Food production has been hidden by a cloud and even the production of Food Inc showed that the way Monsanto and the major chicken producers hid and intimidated those who were planning on participating in the production. This will not help their cause. The values of consumers are changing and food producers need to understand that they either need to produce food in concert with those values or change how they do it. If they are producing in a way that is acceptable, then be open and honest. If not, change and then be open and honest.

Dole seems to be learning this lesson the hard way. They just dropped a lawsuit against a Swedish filmmaker over the film “Bananas” which Dole said contained all kinds of inaccuracies. So they sued for defamation. Wrong. Defamation is incredibly hard to prove and any attempt to sue on this basis, unless the accusations are so egregious as to win over the saveables, will be seen as nothing more than bullying in order to protect the silence.

What are food companies to do? 1) Evaluate your practices against the rapidly changing consumer values. 2) If they can’t withstand criticism in the open light of day, change them. 3) Communicate or be prepared to communicate what you are doing and why.

Personally, I think the world is incredibly blessed by the enormous productivity of our farmers and food producers. To steal a line from Churchill, at no time in the history of eating have so many owed so much to so few. If these organizations were to change to meet the extreme views of a very vocal minority, millions would starve to death and food would consume a much higher percentage of all our budgets. But for goodness sake food people, defend yourselves. Tell the wonderful story of the good work you do to feed the world. Stop hiding.

Andy Bailey (who I just had the pleasure of meeting at a conference I was speaking at, provided a quotation I hadn’t heard before but is very appropriate for this discussion:

Eric Hoffer:

“In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.”

I hope for the sake of the hungry masses and my children’s food budgets that the food industry will wake up and start learning.

A remarkable speech about the future of media

Thanks to Twitter and Breaking News On, I was alerted to this speech in Melbourne, Australia by ABC boss Mark Scott (that is ABC in Australian Broadcasting Corporation) about the future of media. While this might be seen as a bit of a catfight between Australian media barons in the way that Scott takes on global media baron Rupert Murdoch, the more important point is the insight Mr. Scott provides about the future of media.

A few highlights that I took from it for those who may not want to read it all:

- the fall of the media is likened to the decline and fall of Rome–with allusions to Gibbons’ recounting of it vs. Auden’s.

- the empire is gone for good and will never come back–despite the maybe desperate hopes of the old emperors such as Murdoch

- the media empires such as Washington Post who invested outside of traditional media have done well while those focused on traditional print media have been hurt such as New York Times

-He summarized the dilemma of the heavily invested mainstream media well: Everywhere now, the scramble is on. To win in online, to give the audiences what they want and when they want it. But it is hard when there is still so much left to lose. When you’ve spent so much getting to where you are: those presses and those trucks; the cost of your TV licence and your broadcast systems. When newspaper advertising still brings in ten times what advertising online does. When audiences watching your catchup services are far less valuable than those watching when you broadcast on television.

- His suggestions for survival:

1) Know that the rules have changed.
2) Stay on top of technology change (ABC embraced Twitter even while uncertain if it is a fad waiting to fade)
3) Empower audiences to contribute–facilitator rather than content provider
4) Protect assets through diversification–accept that the money in providing content may simply not be there
5) Understand that an organization’s culture may be the biggest obstacle to change

An excellent analysis by someone in the media who is thinking clearly and realistically.

Public view of news accuracy hits lowest levels in two decades. Why?

The Pew Research Center for People & the Press reported on September 13 that now only 29% of Americans think the press gets it right. 63% say that news stories are often inaccurate. That compares to just twenty five years ago when 55% said the press got it right. The chart on this report shows the startling decline in public trust in the press.

More findings: 60% say news organizations are politically biased.

What’s going on here? There are many possible theories–here are a few:

- news media news staffs are shrinking fast and so don’t have time to make sure things are accurate

- competition for audiences is all based on immediacy and so editorial caution is thrown to the wind in order to beat the competition (note Sept 11, 2009 “terrorist attack” reported by CNN)

- news organizations are relying more and more on citizen journalists, such as I-Report and these non-professionals don’t get it right (note CNN’s airing of a false I-Report stating Steve Jobs died)

- news has become “infotainment” where facts don’t matter but entertaining audiences does

- most cable news is based on political pundits spouting off in a semi-news environment leading people to conclude it is all opinion (and mostly vacuous at that)

- Fox News has destroyed America (many will probably vote for this one)

- Fox News has demonstrated what many conservatives knew and the mainstream always denied that there is wide-spread political bias in most major news organizations

- the news media has been so busy bashing our business and government institutions for so long they didn’t notice that the “collateral damage” would include them as big, powerful organizations and therefore also not to be trusted

I think all of these play a role in this huge decline in trust and credibility. But I think there is another far more important reason and in that I have hope–because the loss of a fourth estate in which we as the public can place our trust is potentially devastating for our society.

I think the key is in what Eric Newton, vice president of the journalism program at the Knight Foundation, said in the current issue of PR Tactics: “The public’s ability to spot errors is at an all-time high.”

We live in a post-media world, or at least a rapidly increasing post-media world. We don’t get our information from the media exclusively or even primarily. We get it online, and probably more importantly, from those who are very well connected online. We don’t have to be online to benefit from the speed and accuracy of online communication–all we need to be is within cellphone range or earshot of those who are.

Wait a minute, some of you are saying. Did he say the “accuracy” of online communication. Yes, because I think one of the great myths of our time is what you get on the internet isn’t true. True, a lot of what you read and see or hear is not true or accurate. But in the mish mash of multiple people being involved, the truth almost invariably comes out. One of the most stunning examples of this was related in a white paper by Jeanette Sutton of the University of Colorado. Following Virginia Tech shooting, students from U of Colorado when to Virginia Tech to study use of Facebook in that horrible event. They discovered that the Facebook community was able to identify all 32 shooting victims by name well before the authorities could officially release those names. Even more remarkably, they did it without error. Surprised? Then you may also be surprised to hear that Wikipedia is at least as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

With many millions providing input into critical stories, the some total is something closer to truth than we have ever had through the most rigorous editorial policies. It remains true that effective editing and true objectivity will win the day over almost any blog or Facebook page, and so should be a shorter path to the facts or truth. But increasingly it is becoming clear that the accumulation of information and knowledge available through social networking is demonstrating that far too much of what is provided via traditional media is neither true nor unbiased.

So, has the media been declining in reporting and editing so that the decline in trust is justified? No, I don’t think so. While there are notable exceptions, we are still benefiting from most of the editorial rigor we always had. But we are just now starting to find out that the rigor did not mean there were no errors or no subjective opinions entering in. Anyone who has been interviewed or the subject of a story will tell you that: “I was misquoted” is the common complaint. But the very people who were misquoted believed the stories about everyone else because in a vacuum of competitive information, how would anyone know? Now the competition is bigger, broader and more comprehensive than we could have ever imagined. And the result is the trust we had 25 years ago was misplaced.