The Three C's of Convergence

I am paying close attention to recent magazine articles regarding U.S. jobs moving to Bangalore, India. IBM is currently on a hiring binge in India!. IBM employs about 39,000 people in India, up 70% from 23,000 a year ago. It also indicates that IBM will have at least 55,000 workers in India by next year. This will be almost 20% of IBM’s entire workforce.

IBM recently announced it would spend $200 million a year on a Bangalore development center to centralize work on developing software systems that consultants can resell to customers in many industries. IBM has announced the move of all of IBM’s new Global Solutions Delivery Center in Bangalore. Indian workers at the Bangalore center will apparently design new ways in which businesses can combine with other technologies, such as processing for banks and inventory systems.

Indian citizens are coming to the U.S. and receiving masters degrees in computer technology and computer science. They will work in this country for several years and gain valuable experience in their area of study. Companies, such as IBM, will then hire these individuals for jobs requiring Indian citizens to return to India and work at an outsourced job.

Many jobs currently outsourced to India are now becoming higher end positions. IBM employs about 150,000 workers in the United States but has quietly eliminated a number of domestic positions in recent months. It has lowered its costs in global services, improving gross margins about 3 percentage points last quarter, to 27.4%, compared with a year ago.

IBM says that its customers will get two main advantages from the move to India: costs will be lower, and greater centralization will speed design and innovation. India’s biggest problem now is finding enough workers to fill the positions eliminated from the U.S. Indian workers graduate from their own universities but many have a poor command of English, or refuse to relocate to India’s tech centers. Of course, pay for high tech lobs are a lot lower in India than here in the U.S.

With the number of unemployed tech workers currently in the United States, why can’t we put as much effort into training our people. I honestly believe that if we refuse to wake up and smell the roses, U.S. companies will eventually outsource our entire country and leave our future generations in precarious positions.

Companies need to find ways to make jobs more flexible and interesting for older IT pros. Many baby boomers in the U.S. will be retiring in a few years. I have read a lot of articles lately regarding how employers are worried about an impending exodus of retiring boomers. These companies are looking for ways of keeping older workers on the job longer. This contradicts the stories we are hearing about jobs outsourced to India. If this is truly a concern, it is my opinion that we need to retrain older employees and provide them the jobs that are currently going oversees.

Posted by at 8:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

While most of you follow the political and journalism blogs, I, on the other hand, am intriguied by how this new phenomenon is affecting branding work done at the corporate level.

According to Sally Falkow of /Expansion Plus Inc. an online marketing and PR agency, "blogging allows you to look into a company, meet its people and see how it functions." That's all well and good, provided the company has a strong strategic direction that has been communicated internally and externally.

In Falkow's article, she outlines some benefits of corporate blogging, and they are as follows:
1. Increases search engine visibility and brand awareness
2. Offers a direct communications channel to the public
3. Builds credibility and trust
4. Allows you to tell your story, uncensored by the media
5. Makes your organization more "real" to the public

I see one positive outcome of blogging will be improving internal communication channels. As a marketer, this is a positive as some of the companies that have built the strongest brands are those that have employees who can talk knowledgably and enthusiastically about their company and products. Think /Nike.

With the speed these new mediums are taking hold, it will only be weeks or months before we know how this will effect brands and their messages.

Posted by at 5:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I have been thinking lately that our discourse has been curiously devoid of discussion of how free newsweeklys fit into all of this convergence. I’m talking about publications like the Pitch here in Kansas City, or Westword in Denver. It seems like every major city has at least one. You can easily find them in coffee shops, record stores, bars and clubs, and even on the street in their own special holders. As a live music, theatre and art fan I pick these up to find out what’s going on and who’s playing when and where. Always in hopes that Devo might be playing a free show at the Uptown next week. (You didn’t think you could get the last Devo reference in here did you JB?) I also enjoy reading the rest the paper and I sheepishly admit to scheduling more time to read the Pitch than I do the Star. It just goes much better with a beer on a barstool I guess.

These publications are vehemently leftist and anti-MSM for the most part. The revolving writers of the Kansas City Strip column and regular columnist C.J. Janovy regularly call out the Star on their mishaps in a manner very much like the watch-blogs that we have been following.

In another blog-related experiment (it seems- I haven’t seen it for a while) the Pitch was scouring the Kansas City blogosphere for articles and re-printing them. I found this a curious way to “link” to other blogs. Perhaps I should investigate this more to find out why we haven’t seen this for a while.

The paper claims to get more than 250,000 readers a month, and even more people read the stories on their website. And the 75 or so pages are so chock-full of ads it’s often hard to simply FIND the articles. Plus, my friends, it’s free. Do you think traditional newspapers don’t see this as another major force impacting their ad sales?

I just wanted to throw these things out there because it seems that we need to acknowledge these papers for how they are affecting and relating to both traditional newspapers and online media and blogs.

Posted by at 5:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

What will it take for "traditional" news media to start citing to and crediting the bloggers as legitimate journalists?

One of the ultimate signs of credibility is how often the source is cited to. That's nothing new. What does seem to be new is the bloggers demanding to be recognized. Not surprising to me is that it comes from some of the most crazy, devoted bloggers out there -- the sports bloggers. Check this out from a Notre Dame football blog:

Just to bring everyone up to speed, the incident started on Colin Cowherd's national radio show on ESPN-Radio on Wednesday afternoon. Cowherd had a lengthy segment with a caller where he read a funny fake version of the Wonderlic test that he had found 'on the internet', much to the enjoyment of his (I can only assume) throngs of listeners. The problem was, the piece wasn't written by 'the internet', it was a fine piece we all enjoyed several weeks ago on the M Zone Blog. After being called out via e-mail, Cowherd fired back with a hastily-worded and quite immature bit of snark unbecoming of someone who has just been caught plagarising. EDSBS broke the story, Deadspin broke the story, and next thing you know, the entire internet was aware, mobilized, and infuriated. By the beginning of this week, the cooler heads prevailed and Cowherd issued a meaningful, albeit slightly terse apology and retraction. The M-Zone took it in stride and has now deemed the matter closed and resolved, with the added bonus of the throngs of attention and free publicity they received.

Demanding and recognition of the right to be cited is a huge step in the direction of being recognized as a legitimate journalist.

Posted by at 3:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

It looks as if the television industry might start to get serious about making ads click. As in click-through. Although the New York Times article TV and Top Marketers Discuss the State of the Medium never uses the term "click-through," and nobody in the story seems to be thinking quite that way yet, it's lurking there in the shadows of the marketers' budding plans for the non-linear TV future.

The whole TV universe is built on the idea that TV is the center and everything revolves around it. (In TV, "everything" means advertising, and advertising is everything. Just ask anybody in sales or news.) TV took money away from newspapers, from radio, from anything it pleased. But now the Internet could be about to end that streak -- probably already has. TV is still the center of the universe, or at least of the media galaxy, but according to those at the Association of National Advertisers, the networks are starting to sense some changes in the heavenly order.

The problem for television advertising is that many companies have begun devoting larger portions of their advertising budgets to the Internet, streaming video and even cellphone ads. Some speakers at the conference argued that despite the flaws in television ads -- viewers are increasingly ignoring them by simultaneously using the Internet or instant-messaging and employing ad-skipping devices like the digital video recorder -- television is still a strong medium for ad messages.

Those change-fraught words: "digital video recorder." Tossed in like an afterthought, but with a lit fuse attached.

Dare I ask an overwhelming question, "Are we men or are we TiVo?" Naaah.

The TiVo nation will forge more changes than just skipping ads. Eventually, the ads we see (or don't see) will directly depend on how we TiVo. What programs we click on. What we don't.

But that's too futuristic. For now the response is to do what newspapers did without great success: sell ad packages that bundle together media. The second -- more realistic and more likely to succeed in the long run -- is to acknowledge the competition and go with the download flow:

CBS is now selling cross-platform advertising, like Internet ad space packaged with television commercials, [CBS head of research] Mr. [David] Poltrack said. While acknowledging that the Internet is competition for broadcasters, he also said that networks can take advantage of the growing popularity of streaming video. Through the college basketball tournament so far, CBS has been hosted to more than 14 million downloads of streamed video and more than 4 million unique visitors, he said.

No telling how long it'll be before the download is the dog wagging the broadcast tail. But it's inevitable. Obvious. Just waiting for the next generation of TiVo-like device to come along and take us that much closer.

As a coda to the story, Converse, the sports shoe maker, showed how it used viral video, a cousin of "citizen journalism." The company asked for videos that feature Converse sneakers and got more than 1,500 of them, which went onto its Web site. What's more, "The campaign also latched onto the trend of consumers being obsessed with user-generated content."

So viral video, alongside the click-through, is another step toward interactivity, acting a bit like talk radio. The audience member says, "It's live, it's real. It's.... me." If you can get audience members to produce their own content, it's that much less you have to do as the producer or advertiser. Of course, that's not the way the marketing folks would put it:

"We're trying to blow the barrier between brand and consumer," said Erick Soderstrom, the senior director of global brand development for Converse.

I'm looking for "blow the barrier between brand and consumer" to turn into another buzzphrase up there with "push the envelope." Saw a great quote about branding awhile back, but I don't know where I saw it, and Google isn't getting the job done for me. Anyway, I can paraphrase. A woman said she didn't want a brand relationship with Tylenol; she just wanted to get rid of her headache.

I'd think blowing the barrier would give you a heck of a headache.

Posted by Professor John Broholm at 1:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A hundred heads are better than one.

Several bloggers investigated a photo posted on the Web site of Howard Kaloogian, a Republican candidate for congress. They found that the photo, which the Web site claimed was taken in Baghdad, Iraq, was actually of Istanbul, Turkey.

The photo was posted along with the following caption:

“We took this photo of downtown Baghdad while we were in Iraq. Iraq (including Baghdad) is much more calm and stable than what many people believe it to be. But, each day the news media finds any violence occurring in the country and screams and shouts about it - in part because many journalists are opposed to the U.S. effort to fight terrorism."

Kaloogian apologized for what he called a mistake. But bloggers were still not convinced. Eschaton wrote this about the corrected Baghdad photo:"Hilarious. This is apparently the best picture Kaloogian could obtain from his visit to Iraq to illustrate his point."

My point: I have barely any experience in the traditional news business, but reporters from other news outlets sometimes seem reluctant to share their information. There's a team mentality prevalent in press conferences when reporters gang up on a source to extract guarded information. But press conferences are held for efficiency's sake--sources usually don't grant seperate interviews.

Bloggers interact with other bloggers to a greater extent to get information. Just peruse the dialogue among the bloggers and the commenters. They bounced ideas and new developments of the story off each other. They investigated the story together.

I'm not sure which medium provides the greater incentive to dig for the truth. Both groups gain prestige and money. The reporter gets the scoop, and by extension, so does his or her employer. The blogger gets more hits and more money if he or she sells advertising space, plus accolades from the blogosphere and the mainstream media.

Bloggers collaborate and traditional news reporters adumbrate. Bloggers have a knack for collaboration that's tough to compete with.

Posted by at 7:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

The AP is trying to catch up with the 21st century. Like every other news organization, the folks at the world’s oldest and largest news gathering operation have been talking for years about declining readership, particularly among its younger audience, and what to do about it.

Six months ago, the AP launched asap, a new service targeting the elusive 18- to 35-year-old age bracket. Some of the cooperative’s best young journalists are working for asap, which uses stories, audio, video and other multimedia features to make national and international news more appealing to younger readers. The service also is supposed to help AP’s members attract new readers and keep them reading. Here’s one story that uses text, audio, video and pictures to extol the health benefits of coffee. If you have strong feelings on the issue, there’s an interactive feature for comments. And there are plenty of catchy headlines running the side of the page to grab your attention.

It’s too soon to tell whether asap will work. But the service seems like it would appeal to just about everyone because it offers a little bit of everything. It also provides creative new perspectives, such as a story by an astronaut’s daughter. Another feature put cameras in the hands of two Iraqi children so they could give us a glimpse of their cities.

In addition to asap, the AP started an online video feature this month. Poytner’s Rick Edmonds points out that it has some unusual features. For one, each clip is supported by ads. And the videos are a joint venture with Microsoft so they only can be accessed through Internet Explorer.

Tom Curley, AP’s CEO, summed it up this way: “We are an electronic news company, trying to become a digital news company.” He said the AP has “a couple of commandments" for innovation: “use the technology to create more content and protect that content; create an AP video network; increase photos by at least 20 percent.”

Expanding online content is a great idea given the nearly endless amount of competitors out there. I like that asap puts stories about cowboy chic fashionistas and bananas (complete with catchy tunes in the background) alongside stories about Iraq and more pressing issues. I just hope all of my friends do too.

Posted by at 3:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Okay, I couldn't think of a catchy title on my own, but a book I'm reading for another class pretty much sums it all up in this one. The book, obviously titled The World is Flat, by Thomas L. Friedman brings the Internet, global communication and all of its implications into sharp detail and frankly scares the daylights out of me! The World Is Flat

As I read the book, it gave a fairly ground up introduction into how the Internet effected different aspects of business and many activites companies perform here in the United States are now being outsourced to India, Tokyo, Australia, Japan and anywhere else you can imagine! Call centers were among the first to move their operations over-seas because of the low wages, high quality service and ability to have people on call 24 hours since India's day is our night and vice-versa. (Interestingly enough, just this week I called the bank my car is financed through and ended up with an operator in India!) Technology based companies such as Microsoft and Dell also have substantial operations in India, which is great for India but bad for US workers. Microsoft

Since I work in a "traditional" industry, I didn't think there was any way this could apply to what our firm does, however as I read, I found out that many firms such as mine (accounting firms) outsource the more menial work in order to give more attention to higher-level work. After a little fact-checking I found out our firm actually participates in this practice as well! We are a global firm and have officers everywhere so I should not have been surprised but just thinking about someone half a world away getting my job because they will do it for 1/5th of the price is very scary to me but almost a no-brainer for the firm in terms of saving money.

Finally, it appears the majority of jobs that are being lost to overseas technology and outsourcing are coming from the Midwest 48,000 jobs lost and according to Mr. Friedman, Journalists are not excluded from this trend!

Posted by at 3:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The State of the Media is a site about… well, the State of the Media. Blogging article

This happens to be an extensive article on blogging… who does it? What blogs are the most popular, etc. Take a look – you might see something you like or at the very least, is disturbing, as was in my case. Perhaps you aren’t going to ask why but I’ll tell you anyway.

I find blogging and the authority it holds a little concerning. Bloggers can say whatever they want and not site original sources. Those of us in the journalism world (not now, but used to be) should find some uneasiness with this. We were taught that sourcing is the is all, ends all. Heck, one could be punished for making up a source or changing the source statement or what have you.

As we all know many people blog just to have their voice heard, or respond to someone else. So, in my opinion, blogging is just a means of communicating – much like a phone call. Aunt Sue and Betty Jane can ramble on and on about how much they dislike this politician or that and not prove their points to each other… which… I think is fine until you begin preaching as if what you were saying was the gospel. That’s fine if bloggers want to do that but back up what you are saying with original sourcing!

Interestingly enough, according to the article, “Blogs”, the reasons to post a blog (in order of most common) were:

1. Event
2. Other blogger post
3. Press account
4. Newsmaker statement
5. Journalist statement
6. Published report

To all bloggers out there… Do with this what you will. However, do us all a favor and back up your writings… a good journalist would.

Posted by at 3:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

So, fellow students, while you were busy slurping tequilla body shots off some unnamed co-ed at the Cancun T.G.I.F (all while working on our group projects, of course), there was a major shake-up in the Blogosphere.

The Washnigton Post recently hired former National Review wrtier and Regnery Publsihing editor Ben Domenech to write its "Red State" blog. The blog was an attempt to provide balanced political opinions and help curb the criticisms that the paper was a biased, left-leaning publication.

Perhaps as is to be expected, the hiring of the outspoken 24-year-old was challenged at every turn by the Post's liberal readers. They cited an earlier column in which Domenech foolishly referred to Coretta Scott King as "a communist." But that really wasn't what did Domenech in. Just three days after he accepted the position, it was discovered by some of the liberal readers that Domenech had plagarized parts of a movie review that he previously wrote for the National Review. It was also mentioned that similar plagarism claims were made against him while he was a student writer in college. In fact, since he was primarily an online writer, there was a rather long trail of evidence to support claims of serial plagarism.

In the end, the alleged plagarism --along with the constant scrutiny from liberal readers--was enough to force Domenech to step down.

While the story is officially over, several troubling questions remain about this entire episode:

1) Are liberal voices dominating the Blogosphere and eliminating any opposition in witch-hunt fashion? As a die-hard liberal, this is a very tough question for me to ask. Still, I think it's very damaging if we continue to treat the Blogosphere as if it's our personal territory. There must be room for both conservative and liberal voices--even if that means the extremes of both sides. Isn't that what America is all about (or was all about)?

2) On the other hand...why did the Post feel it necessary to use a relatively unknown blogger--from an extremely right-wing position (both the Nat'l Review and Regnery Press are pretty extreme as far as mainstream conservative media sources go) to help distance itself from a supposed liberal bias? I mean, can the Post really be THAT liberal if Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward is the only MSM reporter allowed inside the Bush inner circle? Besides, if the vast majority of readers of the Post blog are in fact liberal, why would the paper seek to alienate its audience?

3) But perhaps the biggest question in this entire fiasco is: Why was an unproven 24-year-old hired by one of the nation's top newspapers to represent an entire side of the political fence? Not that 20-somethings are inherently clueless (that is, the scientific research hasn't been published yet to verify this commonly held belief), but weren't there many, many more qualified people to take on this difficult role? Or, as Jim Brady, executive editor of Washingtonpost.com, said, the hiring taught them a valuable lesson:

"We're certainly likely to look for someone with a more traditional journalism background," Brady was quoted as saying after Domenech resigned.

Source

And, that, my friends (I'm assuming we're friends), is the bottom line. It's not so troubling that the Post sought out a sensationalistic blogger, it's that they abandoned any emphasis on strong, proven journalistic skills. As a result, they quickly discovered that blogging and journalism aren't necessarily synonymous. Just because you can articulate your opinion doesn't mean you've actually backed it up with any true reporting skill. At the very least, this episode should remind the MSM that as they try to latch on to the blogging craze, they still need to remember that their primary focus should always be on responsible journalism.

Posted by at 9:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

I was reading the article on Poynter Online today by Kelly McBride. She was talking about quoting your friends and how it’s lazy journalism. When I started reading I definitely already had my opinion on the topic. I think that quoting your friends can be lazy journalism, but I also think it can also provide personal insight into your story and make it more entertaining to the reader. Honestly, as a writer, I think I enjoy writing columns and including my own personal opinion or experience in my stories. I think it makes it more fun for me to write and easier for my audience to understand. Plus, as a reader you enjoy a writer with personality and style. If that means allowing them to discuss their lives or their friends, I say write on.

I think the point that McBride was making is that journalists should not just confine their sources to just their social circles. I completely agree with that. However, I do feel that one’s social circles can provide great resources for better sourcing. When I was an intern at a television station my senior year in undergrad there was one reporter that would specifically come to me for her sources. She could never find people to talk to her for her stories and I knew just about everyone because I lived there my whole life. So, when she would say, ‘Sam, do you know anyone for this?’ All I did was whip out my cell phone and make some calls. Eventually, I always found someone. Whether it was a friend or a friend of a friend, we always had someone who worked well for the story.

McBride might scoff at my experience and say that this particular reporter was just using me. She could be right. But I was everybody’s favorite intern and therefore got to do a lot of my own stuff. So take that.

Posted by at 5:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

And just when you thougt that credit cards could be destroyed, preventing us from paying 17.9 to 20.44% interest, they come out with radio frequency cell phones. This means that you get to stand a few inches away from a scanner and have your cell phone "swiped" to pay for merchandise. No signature or pass code (PIN) required. They say it speeds things up for the merchant. These RF bar codes are now available in assorted colors for your key chain too, so charge ahead. However, don't ever think about losing your cell phone or key chain because without a pin or signature requirement, you will be paying the rest of your life. My advise to anyone is - don't even think about it. Try using cash for a change. - it's a lot cheaper and I think they still accept it at most stores.

Posted by at 6:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Okay J-school students - are you ready for this? There actually is a 22 page guide available on the Blogosphere for marketers entitled "Trust MEdia: How Real Peope are Finally Being Heard." This piece was made available by a well-known communications agency, Edelman. The beginning of the "white paper" begins by talking about how the average consumer no longer wants to be talked "to" but engaged in communications. Hmmm. I guess that's where blogging fits in.

In this paper, Edelman discusses the boom in blogging and the history of the Blogosphere. He goes on to define bloggers as "youngish internet veterans with a need for news." He reports that 57 percent of bloggers are male and 42% of bloggers have a household income of more than $50,000. I guess that cuts out beginning journalists and college students. Another interesting bit of information in this white paper is where Edelman comments that blogging has now become a part of PR measurement.

Edelman has taken such a liking to blogging that he now places his blog on the front page of the company's Web site and a quick Google search talks about Richard Edelman's blog on its Web directory. Interesting stuff for a PR agency.

I believe the most important impact blogging has had to PR (at this point in time - it likely will change next month) is the speed in which information can be disseminated to a vast and engaged audience. The impact of this new PR tool is yet to be determined but will play an important role in communications plans for some time to come.

Posted by at 7:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I hope a blog can be nothing but a rant, because that's what this is going to be. I have to admit that I have occassionally flipped over to American Idol when it was in the first "try out" stages so I could laugh at the pathetic morons who managed to convince themselves they could sing and then they proceeded to make fools out of themselves on National television. Maybe a little pathetic on my part, but still, no less amusing. I'm not a super big fan of reality television anyhow, I've never watched an episode of Survivor, I stopped watching Bachelor a loooong time ago and Big Brother seems like a big bore. However, American Idol has taken this thing to a whole new level. I swear this show is on 2-3 times a week, sometimes for two hours. I was with my in-laws the other night, we didn't talk except during the commercials because they were watching the show. When we did actually manage to strike up a conversation, I noticed my mother-in-law slyly slip into the next room to Tivo it. I get home from school and my husband is watching it which shocks me because there are no sports involved. In my car on the drive in the radio personalities are talking about who got voted off last night, (no need to worry! Although Ace was in the bottom 3 last night, he made it through and Melissa got the axe. Apparently she was over-rated anyhow...)

I swear, the show should be American Idle because of the 25 gazillion people who are parking on their couches multiple times a week to watch this stuff! If that isn't enough, American Idol now has its own blog. Oh yes, boys and girls, just in case watching it, hearing about it and talking about it at work/school aren't enough you can now blog from the convenience of your own home/office/school/bus/whatever! I've included a little sample of American Idol's blog-site just to let you see how wrapped up people are with this thing. I didn't dig around to find it, this is literally the first entry on the list and clearly, I have made no edits to the grammar, punctuation, etc.

i don't know how kevien is getting so far but i am really getting sick of him, expecially this whole sex simbal thing as if. I cried last night when ace got picked to be in the bottom three, but all this means is that he will come back three times as strong next week!!! the only good thing that happend last night was the comercal that was soo funny i cracked up and i am not just talking about ace i also liked when bucky poped out of the trunk.

Although I wish I had seen Bucky "pope" out of the trunk myself, I missed it and will now just have to conjure up visions in my head, or turn the television on for 3.2 seconds to watch the precisely 8.3 million reruns of this particular clip that are probably airing while I'm wearing myself out blogging about it! Whew, I'm tired. And, that's probably all I'm going to be able to get away with before Simon Cowell himself hunts my sorry butt down to have me tried for blasphemy!

LOL! I did say it was going to be a rant, didn't I?

Posted by at 5:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When Jacki Schechner of CNN visited the Dole Institute for Politics Tuesday, she talked up blogs for their vigor and interactivity. However, she said the degree of polarization in the electorate is troublesome, and an increasing number of centrist blogs are appearing. CNN is covering blogs as something of a beat on the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer -- a show I gotta admit I seldom if ever watch.

She talked down (way down) podcasting, calling most pods "amateur radio," and criticizing their lack of interactivity. She said interactivity is one of the prime reasons for the growth of blogs.

A few years back, people called the Web home pages of the citizenry amateurish -- rightly -- but predictions of the ultimate death or irrelevance of the Web were off-base. Home pages begat blogs, and they were off and running. I'm predicting that podcasts will follow a similar arc. First, though, we'll see some sort of breakthrough that makes them more immediate. Right now they are indeed like little broadcast downloads.

Posted by Professor John Broholm at 4:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

A bit of research has turned up several studies that show that people are getting more and more news from the Internet, but still not as much as network television, cable and newspapers. A considerable bunch of these reports focused on Generation Y, most certainly because they are the future drivers of the economy. One study by The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (C.I.R.C.L.E.) in 2003 found that around one quarter of Americans between the ages of 15 and 25 use television, radio, or newspapers to obtain news on a daily basis. Only 9.5 percent of those polled listed the Internet as a news source seven days a week. However, about 21 percent of young Americans say they use the Internet for news at least four times a week.

The Pew Research Center for People and the Press measures news trends annually. Their 2004 report showed a sharp increase in people saying they get their news from the Internet (29 percent - up from 2 percent in 1996). 38 percent listed cable news, and 34 percent listed nightly television news programs as their source.

Other recent and ongoing polls asking “Where do you get your news?” can be found at gURL.com gURL.com, misterpoll.com and Monster Forums .

Posted by at 4:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The next step of migration from TV to the Internet has started. ( As Internet TV Aims at Niche Audiences, the Slivercast Is Born) The New York Times' Saul Hansell apparently doesn't get credit for coining the term "slivercasting" (48,000 hits on Google), but he's at the top of the search list.

The Times spotlights Sail.tv, which would be like HGTV or the Military Channel if it were on cable. Instead it's streamed on the Internet. As I write this, it's showing a feature on a windsurfing competition in England. The program was streaming when I pulled up the site, but when I click on a title on the program schedule, I get what I want. Basically it's programming on demand, albeit in a small way.

The program provider can aim narrow. Really narrow. One of the channels listed on Narrowstep is FieldHockey.tv, which wouldn't show anything when I visited. I'm betting the Baby Channel has a bit wider appeal. I can't get anything to come up on it, either, so things are still rough. But Sail.tv seems to have it together. Narrowstep lists about 50 channels.

The business model is simple: It takes a lot less startup money to do this than to get on cable. But it could get more complicated fast. According to Hansell:

While advertising on small video sites has been sporadic so far, many companies, including Roo and NarrowStep, say they see an opportunity to match video commercials to specialized audiences, as Google does with Internet searches and Web pages.

That's a clear step forward, though there are obvious technical missteps. Sail on.

Posted by Professor John Broholm at 4:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When I worked as a CG Operator at a television station a couple years ago, I felt the News at Six was a recycled version of the News at Five. The News at Ten managed to recycle those stories only so far as to provide a short follow-up.

Now that the Five o'clock news is becoming a recycled version of what viewers can get instantly on the internet, what will it take for news directors to change their formats? They can't stick with this forever...

I really enjoy the show "Pardon the Interruption" on ESPN. Sports columnists Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon debate the top sports stories in 90 second spurts while devoting five minutes of the show to a live interview. This could work in a local news format I believe.

For the traditional news viewers, the five o'clock news can stay as it is, but at six o'clock, I wouldn't mind seeing a news anchor or local newspaper columnist take on city and national issues in short little spurts. They don't want to know about the train wreck downtown because they heard about that at 10 am. What they want to know is should the federal government be subsidizing Amtrak. What people want from objectivity now is not a well balanced report but a well reasoned opinion.

Posted by at 2:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Not a single, coherent theme this time around (surprise), just some random observations--non-sequiturs, if you will. Think of me as your own personal Larry King. (Isn't that a Depeche Mode song?)

First, about the tornado that hit Lawrence last weekend...it really reminded me that, as much as we talk about blogs being the future of journalism--or mass communication, for that matter--they just can't compete with some traditional media formats during an emergency crisis. Of course, we all know about the people blogging during Katrina. That is where blogs do have an advantage: They can help a lone voice get the word out to countless others across the globe.

However, when it comes to quickly disseminating information to a local yet diverse audience (one that spans a number of social and economic backgrounds), it's not so good, especially when the power is out and most computer users still have traditional plug-in-the-wall connections. I was suddenly transported back to a time when the whole family gathered around the radio...until the Big 12 championship game was on, and then I rushed to the nearest sports bar that still had power (by the way, Chris, hook 'em horns! hehe).

Okay, second topic...I just want to say to all my classmates: Y'all are some sexy mutha-bloggers! No, seriously, according to this study we're, like, totally turning people on:

According to Simon Dumenco, a prominent U.S. media analyst, people read blogs at least in part because they "want to get laid."

In this week's Media Guy column for Advertising Age magazine, Dumenco contends that knowledge of the hippest, hottest blogs can increase hook-up opportunities and boost sexual attractiveness. He maintains some people are using niche blogs such as Gawker.com and Defamer.com to gain pop cultural insights that make them more socially desirable and ultimately more likely to get lucky.

Story here.

Then again, according to my previous "X-list" theory, admitting that you read this blog could lead to a drink in the face and a serious pounding by security.

This story is so full of it that it's brilliant! Don't you just love how "blogging" has come to represent EVERY aspect of communication...from hard news to gossip, from interpersonal communication to broadcasting. There's gotta be a line drawn. Perhaps, through this study, we can develop a suitable definition (something like: Blogging constituites all computer-related communications deemed as having copious amounts of "sexiness" by at least one participant...)

Okay, finally:

I thought it was funny how George Clooney and Arianna Huffington are feuding over whether or not he agreed to blog on her blog. (Sounds like a deleted love scene from one of his movies!) Story here. I'm not sure why Arianna thought piecing random quotes together should pass as a blog entry in the first place, but that's probably another matter altogether. I guess this goes back to my somewhat joking post that someday services will offer to write your blog for you...I suppose that means an entire underground will also develop, one that secretly writes blogs under your name. I can see it now, someone secretly posting under my name about staying the course and leaving Dick Cheney alone! All I can say is, I hope my secret blog is turning more people on than this X-list dump!

Posted by at 2:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Media corporations are rushing to cash in on the Internet, putting content-producing individuals in a better competitive position than ever.

CBS wants to offer a subscription fee for alerts sent to cell phones that would include news and video clips.

Apple Computers, Inc. partnered with Viacom's Comedy Central Network to offer "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" and "The Colbert Report" on iTunes. (Digression: The sly spokespeople prefer to call it a service rather than a subscription, even though consumers would make monthly payments. If they cancel the subscription, they still get to keep the show. If I cancel my magazine subscription do I still get to keep past issues?)

Amazon wants to make it possible for consumers to download movies and TV shows for a fee and burn them onto DVDs.

With all these exciting new proposals, one might think that online auteurs ought to brace themselves for impact. But they shouldn't have to worry about their future, as long as they keep creating creating free content as funny as this.

The MSM has got to come up with a different model to compete. They will have to offer certain types of Internet content for free.

Posted by at 2:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I think blogging is stupid when you don’t have anything to write about. Right now, I am inspired by my own lack of inspiration, if that’s even possible. I am sitting at my computer thinking about how anything I say at this point will be complete malarkey. And I realized, that half the blogs out there are total malarkey. So I, as a fellow blogger, am joining the ranks of people who think they have an infinite amount of wisdom and feel compelled to spout it off into this infinite abyss of information we call the Internet. When in reality, I too am sitting in my pajama’s anxiously awaiting the next special on the Sci-Fi Channel.

Have we ever thought about what blogging is doing to our society? Forget journalism and gate keeping. What about the actual bloggers? How is the act of blogging affecting our lifestyle? Of course, I respect bloggers who put out intelligent thoughts and ideas or even critiques. Anderson Cooper, David Perlmutter and Romenesko all come to mind as intelligent and competent writers, thinkers and bloggers. But what about the blogs that are just about what someone did that day? Why do they get to blog? They aren’t helping or enlightening anyone. I have this picture in my head of these people who are so disillusioned as to the importance of their life, that they’re too busy blogging about it to actually go and live it.

For all we know, blogging could contribute to obesity, failed marriages, failed parent -child relationships and even unemployment. I admit I may be taking it too far here. But should there be rules or guidelines as too who gets to blog and who doesn’t? I know this question will freak out 1st amendment enthusiasts. I’m just saying, not everything out there is worth reading, therefore worth writing. If you want to keep a personal journal, maybe write it the old fashioned way. I bet a disgruntled blog reader will even donate a lock and key. I also realize that I have the option not to read a certain blog, just like I can change the channel on the television if I don’t like what I’m seeing. Nobody is forcing me to read a crappy blog, but nobody likes reading crappy blogs either. Well, no intelligent person anyways. Am I being too judgmental? Maybe I should get off my high horse and concede that everybody has the right to blog, whether he or she is smart enough to do so or not. Either way, I’m staying in my pajamas.

Posted by at 1:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Check out the blogging article from the KC Star on Tuesday, March 14 The Bottom Line on Blogging It discusses how more and more companies are using blogs to help them build business. It generates traffic, gives ways for consumers to provide feedback and last but certainly not least contributes to the brand; which, could be either building it up or bringing it down.

According to David Hayes, “Companies are using blogs to build good will, to push their Web sites higher up on search engine lists and to get consumers talking about their brand.”

Hayes has example after example of how blogs helped a company get a big contract or build business or spread the good word about a product. Garmin product bragging I immediately asked myself, “what about the bad stuff?”. John Jantsch, a marketing coach, says that “if you’re going to get a lot of bad feedback on your blog, then you’re getting that anyway, they’re just going other places.”

Okay. So what about keeping up with all of that consumer feedback. Sprint blog Sure. Blogs are great and fun and whatever BUT there is the expectation that if a customer gives you feedback that their comments will be addressed. A lot of companies have blogs (Garmin, Sprint, Microsoft) Garmin but do they respond to their customer concerns? If so, how? Especially for a company like Microsoft – their customers are the epitome of computer savvy. Microsoft I would think that the Microsoft people would be inundated with opinions, thoughts, concerns, compliants, etc. Wow - what a job. Wonder if their will be a VP of Blogging title in the near future. I think we should start a poll to see when that happens - because you know it will.

Posted by at 4:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I can't believe that Mike Wallace is 88 years old. As you all know, he will be retiring from "60 minutes' at the end of this season. This article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/14/AR2006031400885.html indicates that perhaps CBS encouraged Wallace to step down in order that they use younger talent. Wallace denies this and says that it was his decision. If you all remember, CBS did have 60 Minutes2 featured younger correspondents. That show was cancelled due to ratings problems. I like Mike Wallace and his approach to stories are excellent. I hope that CBS replaces him quickly unlike the CBS news anchor position that seems to have become a joke.

Posted by at 9:56 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Ever since Richard Hatch showed us how to become famous and win $1 million on Survivor, regular people everywhere have been clawing their way onto the small screen in embarassing fashion.

Blogs are offering another route to fame and riches. You don't need to go to journalism school or sweat it out in a small market for a while. Instead, you can write something clever (at least according to your own authority) and publish it today. There are plenty of guides out there to help too, like the creatively named "How to Write a Famous Blog.

We all know a few famous bloggers out there. Tony's Kansas City has achieved local fame, and plenty of others, like Arianna Huffington have gained wider popularity. But most are as mindless as the appropriately named "superficial plaza chick".

Technorati lets you search 30.4 million blogs. As if that's not enough, The New York Times reports that another 75,000 blogs are created daily.

In addition to blogs, people are putting their own homemade movies, music videos and other content online in hopes of making some money and a name for themselves. The NYT says even Yahoo! has changed strategy by moving away from creating its own professional content in favor of the amateur kind.

It's all "part of a trend seeking to turn conventional media business models on their heads in the digital age," writes Richard Siklos.

That's a lot of competition for those seeking the spotlight. But my guess is in the end, most of these blogs are going to end up just like Richard Hatch, never to be heard from again.

Posted by at 2:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I woke up to the sound of my cell phone blaring. My alarm clock was flashing and I knew the power had failed sometime that morning. I stared at the alarm clock and waited for the awful ring to stop.

My friend Suse left a message. She knows I don't wake up before noon most Sundays. I slinked back to bed and checked my voice mail.

"Just calling to see if you're OK," she said anxiously. I seemed OK to me.

Then I remembered hearing the siren that failed to get me out of bed. The city of Boulder had trained me to sleep through them. Testing a siren once a month for a summer will do that to a hungover college senior.

I peered outside the glass door that leads to my balcony. The sun was drying patches of wet asphalt and concrete. I didn't get it. I called Suse. A tornado, or something, had struck Lawrence. I walked to the window. The gutters that used to run smoothly along the roof of the adjacent apartment building were mangled.

I called my mom. How could I have slept through a tornado? I asked. She slept through an earthquake aftershock in Los Angeles once, she said. Thanks Mom.

I turned on my computer and the Internet didn't work, so I turned on the news. Josh Garber, Channel 6 anchor, told me to stay inside and keep watching. I did. He narrated over b-roll recorded on a hand-held digital camera. He had filmed it while driving to the newscenter and he apologized profusely for it. I pardoned him.

The meteorologist pointed at the map and seemed to be repeating herself. There were winds that blew hard and they were tornadic winds, which was like calling an avalanche an "avalanchesque snowslide." They wouldn't know if the winds constituted a real tornado for a couple days, but people had reported seeing "funnel clouds," she said.

But the people knew what they saw, Josh said. I waited for the screen to go black and silent for a minute like Orson Welles had done on the radio in "War of the Worlds." That was most horrific part of the whole broadcast, some say.

Then Josh narrated over b-roll footage that featured the downtown destruction. He criticized a few young people for surveying the carnage. They could step on glass or a tree branch might fall a power line on them. I turned it off. The Journal-World Web site still didn't work. I had been watching for 30 minutes and I still didn't know what happened to campus.

I grabbed my camera, headed for the hill, shot some photos on campus and returned home in time for the game. I ran into a neighbor I didn't know I had. I asked him how he was doing.

"Just another day, same as any other day," he said.

I agreed.

Split tree behind Caruth O'Leary

Posted by at 2:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

On Wednesday, National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered” program aired a story on Chinese podcasters that are stirring things up and “pushing the boundaries of the law and decency.” Podcasting’s popularity was boosted in China when a sound engineer named Hu Ge made a video podcast parody of an epic $40 Million movie called “The Promise.” Ge’s 20-minute version, called “The Bloody Case of the Steamed Bun,” was a comment on the quality of the film. According to Ge the original movie “was very bad, so I thought it would be fun to parody it. When I finished my video, I gave it to friends. They passed it around and eventually it ended up on the Internet." The Promise director Chen Kaige is threatening to sue Ge, for copyright infringement, but Ge claims that he was working within Chinese law. The law, he says, states that “you can't be held responsible if you're using someone's work to comment on that work." Ge sees this as a free speech issue.

The Internet in China is highly regulated- the government has banned any sexually suggestive content, gambling, and the transmission of any communications that might be used to overthrow the government or the socialist system, among other things. But Internet use is exploding among the Chinese. The Washington Post reported that 111 million people are connected to the Web there, second only to the U.S. And bloggers and podcasters are becoming famous overnight. China’s first “bedroom blogger” Mu Zimei , who shot to fame recently by blogging about her sexual exploits, recently posted a podcast of fuzzy audio she made while engaged in an encounter with a man she met over the internet. To me it sounds a lot like how many PR people are using blogs to work around the MSM, (which has been discussed in this blog recently). These Chinese bloggers are just trying to work around their government.

Posted by at 5:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, okay. NPR NPR didn't exactly say it but they had a guy on who did say it. NPR did a story on the Knight Ridder sale situation Knight Ridder bids and one of the gentlemen quoted in the story said that he doesn't "see anything good for journalism coming out of this situation". I find that disturbing for newspapers and media in general. Sure newspapers are the traditional part of our industry but my gosh, you'd think we had gone back to the days of [gasp] word processors. What ever happened to studying and reading the paper on a Sunday afternoon.

It's ashame that today's society is too busy to appreciate formal and in-depth analysis into issues that affect our lives via experienced journalists in newspapers Internet Public Library of newspapers My gosh - we might as well start looking for a replacement for the pc/mac. And saying things like "I don't have time to use a pc, I'm much more advanced than that." I have to say that I do not understand the dislike with newspapers among today's savvy media type. I would think that more you read [period] the better, more informed person you will be. Does it matter where it comes from?

I remember reading an incredible, heart-wrenching article in the KC STAR a couple of years ago. It was about the state of the child and welfare situation in Missouri and Kansas. It was one of the best, most informative, most well researched and well-documented pieces of information that I have ever read. Granted the subject matter was horrible, but because of that writer it put a whole new perspective and a whole new picture in my mind about these kids. It spurred me to take action and I did. What is happening to the word in ink?

Posted by at 4:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As I was drifting in and out of our living room Tuesday night, I heard the infamous Denny Crane of "Boston Legal" Boston Legal preparing a public relations campaign to win the night’s case. In that conversation, the first action he had the team undertake was set up a blog and go to other sites and blog the main issue of the case at hand. I thought I was sitting in our seminar. It was incredible how much what we had been talking about came out in this episode.

Continuing throughout the show, Crane hired a PR consultant to do damage control, aka. crisis communications. His comment regarding this was that he wanted to be on "CNN Headline News," "Hardball" and the "Daily Show" – “because that’s where everyone gets their news.” Again, I pinched myself to ensure I was awake!

In the end, the case never went to trial – the entire purpose of putting the media plan in place and attacking the media from many different sides. As someone who has worked in public relations for more than 10 years, it’s our goal to divert attention from an issue as much as gaining positive exposure. Each day we are finding more mediums are used to tackle this objective. Media mixes include more than broadcast and print outlets in times of crisis, Web sites and blogs are normal parts of our plans Pork Trade Action Coalition.

Denny Crane has hit the nail on the head. Question is, what will he tackle next?

Posted by at 1:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The recent spate of "Blogging: Dead or Dying?" stories points up how much blogging -- whatever that might be -- threatens some or many news people. (Not the news people who blog, surely, but we/they know who we/they are.) It continues to do so, even as the opinion columns solemnly (and hopefully) intone about the imminent downfall of the phenomenon.

Newsies are used to having readers/viewers, politicians/public servants, and public relations people look over their shoulders. They're used to carping. But they're not used to much actual, published criticism. And here, by criticism, I mean something akin to what the movie, TV and music critics publish in newspapers: "it was good" or "it was bad" stuff, with a "this is why" and some teeth.

Here's the newsies' view: We dish, we don't get dished. At least not written, visible, widely disseminated dish that actually hurts -- actually seems to have some effect. That's not the way it works, and if it does work that way, woe to us, woe to journalism. Woe to democracy.

Welcome to the receiving end, friends. And here's another chunk of that blog criticism.

Talk about irony in its purest sense. One of the most oft-quoted end-zone victory dances over the prostrate figure of blogging, the Chicago Trib's "Bloggy, we hardly knew ye", begins and ends with gratuitous shots at Al Gore: "No sooner had Al Gore invented the Internet..." "At least until Al Gore invents the Next Big Thing."

This is often called an urban legend, but it's really a media legend, because it was a Bush-campaign talking point that was repeated and amplified in the "legit" news media until it became almost an article of faith. But Gore said no such thing. What he said was reasonably well-supported by the facts, but snark generally trumps reason these days in political discourse. So where the blip is the credibility that the Trib so fervently believes -- or wishes -- it had, which no blogger can possibly lay claim to?

Let's go back to that "reading over the shoulder" thing. William Gamson describes news as a social construction involving three main groups: news professionals, professional news sources (politicians, PR practitioners), and the general public or audience, most of whose members are rarely involved directly in the news unless their house burns down. The interplay of those three groups' interests determines ultimately what goes into the news agenda (along with some of the usual constituents of newsworthiness, like cost of coverage and proximity). PR has had a strong hand in determining what goes into the news, and how it's framed. News people may tiptoe around mentioning the influence of PR, but they can't make it go away.

The role that everyday people play in the construction of the news agenda, though, has been indirect (audience measurement) and fairly abstract. Occasional telephone and U.S. Mail outbursts aside, it has seldom been direct and attention-demanding, like an angry neighbor knocking on your door.

Perry Como used to play a little jingle that went "Letters, we get letters" to intro the viewers-write-in segment of his TV show. (Other shows, reaching for that coveted retro feel, have resurrected the idea more recently.) The contemporary equivalent would be "E-mails, we get e-mails." Oh, do we get them. The interactivity of the Internet slammed into newsrooms long before the blogging menace emerged.

So, along comes blogging, a supercharged V-8 version of Aunt Maude's Home Page (And My Nieces Cookie Recipes With Picture's Of My Dog's). And, let me tell ya, this is far worse, because some of those people in pajamas can read and write pretty well, well enough that they might be mistaken for somebody who's -- like the Chicago Trib or, well, denizens of J-schools -- A Really Important Journalist. (Yes, my snark meter is starting to go into the red.)

As a couple of the contributors to this blog have pointed out, the PR-blog connection is maturing. There's the real threat, if real threat there is beyond shrinking readerships and disappearing ads.

Don't worry about the pajama-clad masses, yearning to be trackbacked. Don't worry about the 2.7 million blogs with a profile high enough to trip over. Don't even worry about the political bloggers with their swag bags from Amsterdam.

Worry about this: PR people have long been better at doing PR than newsies are at doing news. (Too many ex-newsies in the PR dodge for it to be any other way.)

Blogging as a great, unwashed democratic phenomenon isn't long for the world. The Internet was once a commercial-free zone, of by and for the people, long live free (and for free) expression. Uhh... that changed. Corporate culture and commerce rule the cybersphere now. We can't assume that blogging won't go the same way.

Instead of waning, blogging's influence will grow. And even if fewer people view or care about blogs, the right people will, the people who have a direct, intense interest in what's being written about them. And I can't think of a group more intense and self-interested than media people.

Posted by Professor John Broholm at 1:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

In tribute to weblogs, the blogging of yore, my entry this week will be in traditional weblog fashion. You’ll notice there will be little personal commentary, but a link to issues I think everyone else should know about.

First off let me preface my entire entry by saying South Dakota is pretty poor. There are a few counties that have a lot of money and the rest of the state is all Indian Reservation, not exactly my idea of the Promised Land. An article in the paper today sparked my interest. By now, everybody knows that South Dakota has successfully banned abortions, for now. What national organizations are not reporting is how this ban, and the legal expenses connected with this whole ordeal is going to break our state.

Supporters of the ban have been donating to the legal fund, but the controversy is not about the donations. Some donors want to remain anonymous and others want the tax break. Click here to read more.

My opinion? If you want to contribute 1 million dollars to support a cause, own it. If you support the ban, support it publicly. Don’t be afraid of your beliefs or your stand. Not everyone will agree with you, but that’s life. And as a voter, I would like to know the level of validity my representatives have for their stances. If they are contributing to a legal fund supporting a ban I don’t agree with, it is my right to know. They are public figures after all.

Anyways, the Argus Leader is one of the most controversial things in our state. The Republicans think it’s too liberal and the Democrats don’t really care. In my opinion, the republicans only think the paper is too liberal because it’s not unabashedly conservative. Fox news is not the ideal here folks. Because of this controversy I like to read the paper once in a while to stay up to date with South Dakota politics. We are pretty split as far as partisanship. John Thune (R) and Tim Johnson (D) are our senators and Stephanie Herseth (D) as our lone representative in Congress. Because of the split in voting trends, this abortion ban will be a debate for the books. I'm excited.

Posted by at 9:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Take a look at these two passages and see if you notice a trend.

First, from the New York Times:

Under assault as never before, Wal-Mart is increasingly looking beyond the mainstream media and working directly with bloggers, feeding them exclusive nuggets of news, suggesting topics for postings and even inviting them to visit its corporate headquarters.

...Mr. Beller, who runs Crazy Politico's Rantings, for example, said he received an e-mail message from Mr. Manson soon after criticizing the passage of a law in Maryland that requires Wal-Mart to spend 8 percent of its payroll on health care.

Mr. Manson, identifying himself as a "blogger myself" who does "online public affairs for Wal-Mart," began with a bit of flattery: "Just wanted you to know that your post criticizing Maryland's Wal-Mart health care bill was noticed here and at the corporate headquarters in Bentonville," he wrote, referring to the city in Arkansas.

"If you're interested," he continued, "I'd like to drop you the occasional update with some newsworthy info about the company and an occasional nugget that you won't hear about in the M.S.M." — or mainstream media.

And this one from the military.com:

Since last July, the Florida-based U.S. Central Command's public affairs staff -- in an effort recently praised by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for its innovation -- has been initiating contact with editors of Web sites [MY NOTE: bloggers] that cover operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, offering the same news releases and stories written by military officials that are made available to journalists affiliated with traditional media outlets.

In addition, this CENTCOM “electronic media engagement team” encourages these blogs to post a direct link -- along with the command's insignia -- back to CENTCOM's main Web site.

...“It's an incredible way to communicate with the public,” said Lt. Col. Richard McNorton, a CENTCOM spokesman, who oversees a team of two young, enlisted staff members who work full time on the blogs.

It has generated new traffic to the CENTCOM Web site, he said, and paved a new path for pushing content to the public that bypasses traditional print and broadcast media outlets.

As these stories indicate, both Wal-Mart and the Defense Department are using aggressive strategies to shape opinion--and news--in the blogosphere. In both stories there is mention of a desire to circumvent the mainstream media. That seems to be the new goal of public relations. It's not so important to work WITH the news media, but to work AROUND it as much as possible.

But that's to be expected...who doesn't try to spin their own story? However, there is a big problem with these "bloggers" who fail to provide any transparency whatsoever--they simply take the spoonfed story and post it without any attribution. Now, I've worked on both sides of the fence (as a reporter and in public relations), and I know that newspapers often run press releases verbatim, too (often as daily news briefs, not as "major" stories). However, ethical papers usually include mention that parts of a story were provided by press releases or wire services (but that's becoming a rarity, too).

With Bloggers, though, it's an entirely new ballgame. I suppose that transparency manifests itself in the fact that a link provided by one of these bloggers leads you straight to Wal-Mart's or the DoD's site...that should give you a pretty good clue about a blogger's bias.

I find the Wal-Mart story troubling because they are unflinching in acknowledging the connection between their lead marketing strategist in this endeavor and his afiiliation with the decidedly partisan RedState blog. The story, of course, is also troubling because Wal-Mart is waging an all-out campaign in the blogosphere to combat the notion that it owes its workers adequate health care. Who gets to represent the voices of these workers? I'm sure they either don't have access to blogs, so they can't do their own "spinning"--or they simply fear for their jobs if they do so.

As disturbing as that is, I think the DoD example is much more dangerous.

Should the DoD seek to "bypass traditional print and broadcast media outlets?" Don't we deserve a department that makes itself accessible and accountable to the scrutiny of journalists who aren't officially on the bandwagon? Doesn't this lead to a completely skewered perception of how things are headed in Iraq, for example? And, finally, the official quoted in the story makes a big point of saying that--since the emails are in English--they aren't really meant as propaganda abroad. Does this claim really hold water--and isn't it quite possible that propaganda campaigns can be directed at Americans right here? (See Armstrong Williams.)

Perhaps it's not such a coincidence that both Wal-Mart and the Defense Department are using the same playbook. Could it be that Uncle Sam's last name is really... Walton?!!

Posted by at 9:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

People can get away with saying a lot on the Internet. A story in Sunday's New York Times calls it a "lawless place" where "Internet companies have been held immune from suits for libel, invasion of privacy, fraud, breach of contract and housing discrimination."

Postings on Craigslist, for example, have included such derogatory housing requests as "not racist but white only" and "prefer white Catholic family." Most legal experts contend that the current law does not hold Craigslist accountable because Internet companies are not responsible for offensive or illegal content that others post.

But some people say the time has come to start policing the Internet the same way we police newspapers and television content. James Perry, the executive director of the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center, said that discriminatory listings for housing have been a top concern since the hurricanes. He says a line must be drawn between libelous content and discriminatory advertising.

The Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is suing Craigslist for allegedly publishing discriminatory advertisements. The lawsuit alleges that ads discriminated on race, religion, sex, family status or national origin. One of the ads listed in the suit says: "Non-women of Color NEED NOT APPLY."

Craigslist contends that its staff of 19 cannot possibly keep track of all the ads posted on its site. "It is not a publisher, but rather a community-moderated commons run by and for its users, who self-publish and manage their own ads and use a flagging system to police the site."

How much protection should Internet companies receive? New York Times reporter Adam Liptak asks us to consider the issue this way: "Does it make sense to allow lawsuits against this newspaper for the letters to the editor in this section but not for postings from readers on the paper's Web site?"

It's a good question and my guess is it will take a long, long time to answer.

Posted by at 2:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

College basketball's best rivalry tips off again tonight when North Carolina travels to Duke for the regular season finale. ESPN is redefining the phrase "full coverage."

1. On ESPN Classic, you can view old Duke/UNC games.
2. On ESPN2, you can watch the game from the "Above the Rim" camera.
3. ESPN and ESPN 2 HD will broadcast the game in high definition.
4. ESPNU will have a live feed from the Cameron Crazies student section.
5. Mobile ESPN allows users to receive live game updates
6. ESPN International is broadcasting the game to 120 countries worldwide.
7. On ESPN.com, users can chat with analysts about the game.
8. By the way, you can still get the regular game on the original ESPN.

Maybe KU would get this kind of treatment if they could win a championship.

Posted by at 6:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Here is an interesting article found on a Romanesko link:
"An anchor at KTLA-TV received a customized dining-room makeover worth more than $10,000 for her own home, in what a local furniture merchant says was meant to be a swap of free goods and services in exchange for favorable coverage on the station's "Morning News." Instead, the arrangement soured when the story never ran, leaving the Tribune Co.-owned station scrambling late this week to right a tangled situation that could raise new questions about its ethical practices." Here is the rest of the story http://hollywoodhotline.typepad.com/watcher/2006/03/questions_on_ma.html What would be the reaction if the they ran this story? Now, station management and owners are facing scrutiny from the public and advertisers. Tune in tonight on any station in L.A. for a continuation of this soap.

Posted by at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Nowadays, the news media don't have to do all the research for us information geeks.

The public can now view the legal brief that contains criticism of the government's recent request for a random sample of Google's 1 million Web pages from its index and a copy of a week's worth of queries to enforce a child pornography Internet law.

Google has posted the legal brief on its blog as a public relations organ to inform the public of its opposition to the government's position.

What does this mean for consumers of news ? Placing information like this in an accessible place such as a blog makes the news media obsolete. This just gives news consumers one more reason to bypass the quick and dirty approach that many newspapers and television stations use in their coverage. Consumers can peruse the document without interference, such as liberal or conservative bias, from the news media.

To be fair, I never would have found out about Google's use of its blog to disseminate this information if I didn't subscribe to BNA Internet Law News, a free email summary of top stories throughout the week, and had I not read the accompanying article.

No doubt many consumers found the legal brief from the blog itself. More importantly, the blog has a profound ability to post primary sources. Sure, The New York Times and The Washington Post have the same ability. But when companies take initiative to post this kind of material on their blogs, it makes them seem more credible.

We no longer imagine an eager reporter struggling to get a reluctant company spokesmen to divulge the truth. If a company posts a statement online before the reporter gets to them, that's good, transparent public relations.

So what does instant research gratification mean for reporters? It will be more important now than ever for reporters to dig deeper for in-depth stories that blogs usually do not and cannot provide.

Posted by at 5:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

I can’t tell you how many concert flyers I have seen in the last year that contained at least one MySpace URL on it. MySpace allows you to creatively express who you (or your band) are in a way that fits who you are. A lot of the site’s popularity has come from these musicians and fans, and MySpace knows it. They have even launched a record label and is now selling a compilation CD that, when purchased, gives you more photos on your profile.

I know from experience that it takes more than just musical talent to be in a band, you have to be a marketer as well. It is easier and cheaper now to build and customize your “space” and promote your band than it ever was when I was having a go at it. I was a much better designer than I was a drummer, and the flyers, t-shirts and website that I created helped us to get noticed by fans and a record label that put out a couple CDs and took us on tour in Europe twice. I knew how to build websites back then, and spent hours working on the first band site in 1997. If I would have had access to MySpace, I might have had more time for stuff like, oh, practicing the drums.

Customization seems to be the key to attracting users. The creators of MySpace made that their distinction, and within two years surpassed rival Friendster in site visitors. They now receive 2 1/2 times more hits than Google. MySpace has been bought by mega-scary News Corp for $580 Million in cash. Why? Is it because they want to pick this guy’s brain about customization? In time, perhaps we’ll see MySpace-type customization available to us through online news sites. Dave Helling tells us that things are heading in that direction. It will be interesting to see who does what with this idea, and how.

Posted by at 4:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Do you remember August, 1981? MTV does; that was when they launched. A phenom at the time, the pinnacle of the teenage market, MTV was for parents, a nightmare, and for most kids, a dream come true. Video may have killed the radio star, but the www is killing the TV star.

Judy McGrath, CEO of MTV, knows that next big thing will probably not be on TV as we know it. It's going to be a culmination of TV, internet, video, video games and everything in between. She is ready for the test. One of her mottos: Make change part of your DNA. She uses U2 as an example, they "reapplied for the world's greatest rock band" and got the job. You can't get cozy or comfortable. You have to be evolving all of the time and asking the ough questions. This is why Businessweek did this article. They asked: how will the CEO of MTV channels MTV Networks "remake her TV empire for a digital world"? TomLowry - 2/20/06. BusinessWeek

This sentence from Lowry sums up the 8 page cover story, "After all, it's the iPod era, a broadbrand world, and the online generation is defining for itself what is edgy and new". I thought this statement was rather bold. “The online generation is defining.. what is edgy and new?!?!” What about the rest of us – are we nomads thrown to the wolves never to be heard of again. I don’t consider myself part of the “online generation” but I do consider myself a fairly intelligent professional marketer who has a lot of contributions to make to the world. Don’t write me off just yet.

Looks like this generation is gaining steam. According to the article, “kids aged 8 to 14 send an average of 14.4 text messages and make 8.8 calls on their cell phones a day. It goes on to say that officials at SBC, now AT&T “were fascinated by these findings”. SBC-AT&T Okay, I need to digress a bit. How can a major conglomerate of cell phone service and technology ‘be fascinated by such findings’? It’s a little disturbing but also telling on just how huge this new age, new technology, new Establishment is when such a company wasn’t even aware of how their own
products are being used.

I just don’t know how we can begin to realize the magnitude and breadth of this group and this new way of communicating. Someone needs to come up with a name and coin a term for this next generation, if you will.
I’ll attempt it but I’ve never been very good at that kind of thing. As for Judy McGrath, she is the women who is at the helm of successes like Comedy Central and Jon Stewart. She should do just fine. I would like to say ‘watch MTV for the next big thing’ but that might not be the case, since MTV is not the one “defining what is edgy and new” it’s the “online generation”.

Posted by at 9:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Over the past few years, we've been seeing a lot of blurred lines in journalism. Lines are blurred between the editorial and business sides of news organizations as editors increasingly focus on what sells. Frequent outbursts by bloggers and citizen journalists are blurring the line between professional and amateur journalism.

Jon Stewart is helping to create another blurry line, according to Alyson Ward at the Star-Telegram in Fort Worth, Texas. Ward says America can’t figure out whether to classify Stewart as a comedian or newsman.

As the anchor of the widely popular Daily Show, Stewart makes a mockery of the news before huge audiences of young people four nights a week. He aptly switches between the roles of comedian and newsman. He'll poke fun at Vice President Dick Cheney for shooting his friend in a hunting accident, while also poking fun of the media coverage of the story. He'll pose silly questions to fake correspondents on fake assignment in fake locations, but he'll also ask thoughtful questions of serious guests, such as Bill Clinton or John McCain. Time magazine named Stewart one of the most influential people of 2005.

Through his careful back and forth, Stewart is blurring the line between real TV news and the fake stuff. Ward calls Stewart "too funny to be serious, too serious to be ignored." And she says his nightly rants might be "where real TV news is headed."

Legions of young people have already given up on traditional television news, and they tune in at the same time weeknights to the Daily Show. Media critic Howard Kurtz conceded in a Washington Post online chat last month that the show does a "great job in nailing hypocrisy in ways that much of the (mainstream media) doesn’t even attempt.”

But he points out that they also have the “the freedom to make stuff up."

Young viewers are smart enough to realize this difference. They're also smart enough to want a little more attitude with their news. When the vice president shoots someone, or when the federal government bungles a natural disaster response or a war, we want to see people held responsible. Young people often feel as if they don't have a voice in society. Stewart has become that voice. He helps us laugh at all of the things we can't change, but wish we could. He makes the news relevant to us.

He might blurry the lines in the process. But I think we can trust ourselves to tell the difference.

Posted by at 8:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

In today’s world of hi-tech war, a story I read today on how news is slow to reach troops in Iraq baffled me. News Slow to Reach Troops in Western Iraq

The story reported how American troops approximately 160 miles away from the Shiite shrine bombing knew nothing of the incident. This story relates mostly to the American troops in western Iraq.

I wonder how this affects the job they are doing? Is less information better? Are we besieged at times by too much information? Can there be such a thing as too much information on a war front?

I am the last person to be able to answer these questions. I do, however, think it is an interesting contrast to the obsessed news society we have become.

Posted by at 2:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)