Cjones Media News and Views

Tiger Woods Scandal Reveals Traditional Press No Longer Controls The News

December 14, 2009 · Leave a Comment

I have handled crisis communications for clients involved in several major news events including Anna Nicole Smith’s Funeral and the Scott Rothstein Ponzi scandal. In each case, I witnessed the rise of internet-based media and the continued legitimization of the tabloid press.

Well, the folks at newsblues.com agree that the mainstream press is no longer in control of the news:

“Think about it. Never before has tabloid media so clearly owned a story, forcing national newspapers of record, TV and radio networks, and local news outlets to follow its unraveling daily leads. Never before has a celebrity under duress elected to bypass all traditional media options and, instead, make three key announcements on his own website, where he was able to maintain tight control of the intended message. No tearful press conferences with awkward follow-up questions. No exclusive Barbara Walters sit-downs or “60 Minutes” Q&As by the preeminent journalist of his generation. Those things, and more, may still come to pass (although we doubt it).”

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Celebrity Scandal · Crisis Communications · Crisis Situation · Media Relations · Minorities · Newspapers · Social Media · Spokesperson · Tiger Woods · journalism · media training · news coverage · public relations · strategic communications · television news
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Call 911! Tiger Needs A Spokesperson…or Something

December 8, 2009 · 1 Comment

It’s understandable that Tiger Woods wants this situation to remain a private matter, but at this point there are too many unanswered questions destroying his reputation. Now it appears someone at his home has been rushed to the hospital. This is a real emergency.

If nothing else, Tiger should demand balanced news coverage. You can’t stop all of the mistresses from releasing damaging information, but there are dozens of untrue rumors that are being reported as fact.

Tiger needs a hire a “face” that could serve as the voice of reason during this chaos.

The WFTV story here.

→ 1 CommentCategories: Celebrity Scandal · Crisis Communications · Crisis Situation · Media Relations · Minorities · Newspapers · Spokesperson · Tiger Woods · journalism · media training · news coverage · public relations · strategic communications
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Interesting Move Tiger (updated)

December 3, 2009 · 1 Comment

(When I originally wrote this post, there were only two mistresses who were driving the news coverage. Now the number has reached seven with more expected. Each party has hired a lawyer, which means there will be a number of settlements for silence. Tiger will have to make another statement at some point to address the entire issue, not all the sordid details.  This is a real mess. I can only imagine what’s happening inside his home.)

It appears Tiger Woods persuaded his latest mistress from having a press conference. Excellent move. What’s fueling the story are videotapes, phone messages, text messages, and photographs being provided to the press by the mistresses. If Tiger can convince them to remain quiet. This scandal will begin to fade.

Unfortunately, US Weekly and the Enquirer have enough material in their arsenal to keep the story going for a few more weeks.

I applaud Tiger for releasing a more substantive statement after the close of the police investigation. A domestic violence probe could have been disastrous. Apparently, Tiger’s house has video surveillance. It’s possible the incident with his wife was captured on video. There is no doubt in my mind that the investigators would have grabbed it, then released it to the public.

→ 1 CommentCategories: Celebrity Scandal · Crisis Communications · Crisis Situation · Media Relations · Minorities · Newspapers · Social Media · Tiger Woods · journalism · legal marketing · media training · news coverage · public relations · strategic communications
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

More Thoughts on Tiger Woods: New Statement Just Released

December 2, 2009 · 2 Comments

Tiger Woods just released the following statement:

“I have let my family down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart. I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves. I am not without faults and I am far short of perfect. I am dealing with my behavior and personal failings behind closed doors with my family. Those feelings should be shared by us alone.

Although I am a well-known person and have made my career as a professional athlete, I have been dismayed to realize the full extent of what tabloid scrutiny really means. For the last week, my family and I have been hounded to expose intimate details of our personal lives. The stories in particular that physical violence played any role in the car accident were utterly false and malicious. Elin has always done more to support our family and shown more grace than anyone could possibly expect.

But no matter how intense curiosity about public figures can be, there is an important and deep principle at stake which is the right to some simple, human measure of privacy. I realize there are some who don’t share my view on that. But for me, the virtue of privacy is one that must be protected in matters that are intimate and within one’s own family. Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn’t have to mean public confessions.

Whatever regrets I have about letting my family down have been shared with and felt by us alone. I have given this a lot of reflection and thought and I believe that there is a point at which I must stick to that principle even though it’s difficult.

I will strive to be a better person and the husband and father that my family deserves. For all of those who have supported me over the years, I offer my profound apology.”

I think it’s way too wordy, but at least it doesn’t read as if a publicist wrote it. He is remorseful and is asking for forgiveness from his key audiences. Now that the police investigation is over, he can address the most damaging issue – the domestic violence rumor.

What’s interesting is the last two statements have given us insight into Tiger’s personality. He constantly talks about being “perfect.” Not only does this refer to his former squeaky clean image, but it shows Tiger’s entire life and career have been focused on other people’s expectations and him achieving perfection. The man is obviously under a lot of stress to obtain something that is humanly impossible.

Tiger says he’s not responding to media inquiries because of the personal nature of this matter. I agree. It’s clear there will be more evidence emerging indicting that he cheated on his wife. US Weekly has paid one of the mistresses who for obvious reasons kept detailed records of their affair. The tabloids plan to drag out photos and phone calls for next few weeks. I am sure others seeking cash for interviews will emerge as well. I would advise seeking fair coverage, but no press conferences or written statements.

I would also suggest a third party endorsement from a family member or close friend who could talk about the Woods family and their love for each other. Naturally, the Woods should leak “happy family” photos periodically.

Once again, I believe Tiger does not need to deploy social media tactics in this fluid and personal crisis. Besides remaining faithful, the greatest way Tiger can overcome this scandal is by winning on the golf course.

→ 2 CommentsCategories: Celebrity Scandal · Crisis Communications · Crisis Situation · Media Relations · Minorities · Newspapers · Social Media · Tiger Woods · journalism · media training · news coverage · public relations · strategic communications
Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

My Analysis of How Tiger Woods Handled His Recent Crisis Situation

December 2, 2009 · Leave a Comment

I waited a few days to comment on the Tiger Woods crisis situation because I knew there would be new developments by midweek. After reviewing the press statements and the news coverage, I believe Tiger made a few major mistakes in the beginning because there were numerous rumors swirling following the accident. In fact, the highway patrol gave the press a different story that only heightened the media circus. Fortunately, it now seems things will begin to work in Tiger’s favor.

First, let’s discuss the November 29 statement Tiger released on his website following the accident:

“As you all know, I had a single-car accident earlier this week, and sustained some injuries. I have some cuts, bruising and right now I’m pretty sore.
This situation is my fault, and it’s obviously embarrassing to my family and me. I’m human and I’m not perfect. I will certainly make sure this doesn’t happen again.
This is a private matter and I want to keep it that way. Although I understand there is curiosity, the many false, unfounded and malicious rumors that are currently circulating about my family and me are irresponsible.
The only person responsible for the accident is me. My wife, Elin, acted courageously when she saw I was hurt and in trouble. She was the first person to help me. Any other assertion is absolutely false.
This incident has been stressful and very difficult for Elin, our family and me. I appreciate all the concern and well wishes that we have received. But, I would also ask for some understanding that my family and I deserve some privacy no matter how intrusive some people can be.”

My first thought is this statement was rushed. Also, it is clear someone well-versed in crisis communications didn’t review it because the statement is too long and flows into areas that didn’t need to addressed at the time.

The second paragraph raises huge alarms. It was an accident. Why is his family embarrassed? We know you aren’t perfect – humans have accidents. How will you make sure an accident doesn’t happen again? What’s really going on here, Tiger? Were you drunk? Were you on drugs? This error shows what I mean by rambling statements. They raise questions that only lead to more questions outside of the scope of the original message.

The third paragraph, Tiger seems angry and stressed. He uses language this is only going to pique the media’s curiosity. Now everyone wants details on the false, unfounded, malicious, and irresponsible stories. Is he talking about the alleged mistresses?

In the statement, Tiger talks about how his wife Elin acting courageously, but he doesn’t give any details. Unfortunately, the rumors of domestic violence stemming from an alleged affair have elevated the story. At some point, he must discuss Elin’s actions during the accident.

Initially, Tigers’ main messages should have been the following:

  1. It was a minor accident
  2. My wife and I are fine
  3. Thank you fans for your support
  4. There are some conflicting and inaccurate news reports that I will address shortly
  5. Please respect our privacy as this is a personal matter

Some criticized Tiger for not using social media. Folks, social media is not the solution to everything. Remember, it’s two way communication. Many times you open yourself to a new world of criticism by posting rambling statements on Facebook, Twitter, etc. Social media also throws more logs on this fire and gives the story fresh angles and more legs. This situation is fluid and changes by the day. Remember, social media is time consuming and must be managed. If you aren’t set up to do it, don’t attempt it. Finally, your comments on social media live forever and the media can use it as a weapon against you.

On November 30, Tiger put out the following statement:

“Due to injuries sustained in a one-car accident last week, Tiger Woods will be unable to play in the 2009 Chevron World Challenge.
‘I am extremely disappointed that I will not be at my tournament this week,’ Woods said. ‘I am certain it will be an outstanding event and I’m very sorry that I can’t be there.’
‘We support Tiger’s decision and are confident the strong field and excellent course will provide an exciting week of competition at the Chevron World Challenge,’ said Greg McLaughlin, Tiger Woods Foundation President & CEO.
Woods will not participate in any other tournaments in 2009 and will return to action next year.”

This statement is fine. It is concise and has a clear message.

I would advise Tiger to avoid being seen in public until his facial wounds have healed. Pictures of his scratched face would only feed into the tabloid gossip. Also, he probably won’t be able to concentrate on the course right now anyway.

On December 1, the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) charged Tiger with a careless driving infraction. The investigators said they would not file criminal charges or make any other statements on the matter.

However, Tiger can’t breathe a sigh of relief until he knows what is in the FHP report that will be available December 2 at 10 a.m. Tiger and those in his camp should maintain military silence until details of the report surface. I predict there won’t be anything in it too damaging.

Afterward, Tiger should be able to address the specific issues and gossip that are tarnishing his impeccable reputation. He must maintain positive relationships with his fans, the media, the golfing industry, and his sponsors.

I believe squashing the domestic violence issue is critical. I would advise giving an exclusive interview to a supportive media outlet. At the same time, I would suggest posting an updated statement on the website. Finally, when the Woods reemerge in public in January, I would suggest circulating a few happy couple photos.

Tiger could communicate through social media, if he wants to, later on. However, I would advise him to never discuss this incident again.

My final advise for Tiger Woods is to have a crisis communications specialist who works weekends on speed dial. Unfortunately, several women who are seeking tabloid dollars want their 15 minutes of fame.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Celebrity Scandal · Crisis Communications · Crisis Situation · Media Relations · Newspapers · Social Media · journalism · news coverage · public relations
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

OFF AND ON THE RECORD – Times Have Changed!

September 16, 2009 · Leave a Comment

This is an in-depth analysis from NEWSBLUES.COM
For journalists, the rules regarding what is “on and off” the record have changed. Every public relations professional and spokesperson should read this carefully.

OFF AND ON THE RECORD
The perils of speaking “off the record” clashed headlong with the rush of new media Monday when several overeager ABC News employees, including “Nightline” co-anchor Terry Moran, used Twitter to report that President Obama had called Kanye West a “jackass” for interrupting Taylor Swift’s acceptance speech Sunday at the MTV Video Music Awards.

ABC News’s Washington bureau shares a network fiber line with CNBC, and producers there were monitoring the feed of John Harwood, CNBC’s chief Washington correspondent, interviewing the president. What they didn’t hear, apparently, was the explicit agreement CNBC made with the White House that Obama’s pre-interview chitchat was off the record.

Soon, emails about Obama’s comment began circulating internally at ABC. Before news executives had determined whether the material was publishable, Moran and a handful of other ABC News employees posted the remark on Twitter. The network declined to identify the other staffers but noted they were not public figures.

Within an hour, Moran and the other ABC News employees realized their error and deleted the tweets. But the story was already out.

At the news division’s 9:30 a.m. meeting yesterday, ABC News President David Westin reminded the staff to follow editorial standards before sharing information on social networking sites. “There should be a very dark, easily understood line between material that is approved, vetted and published, and material that has yet to reach that standard,” said ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider (right). “The message to our employees is very clear: If it’s approved and published, then people can tweet it or share it on Facebook. Prior to that happening, the information is not to be shared.”

Schneider added: “One of the lessons learned here is that when somebody who is well-known to the news audience tweets something, even on a private Twitter account, it has the same impact almost as ABCNews.com publishing it.”

The incident also served as a reminder that it’s difficult for the president to ever truly be off the record. During the CNBC pre-interview chitchat, Obama seems to realize his comment might be reported…and quickly sought to shut it down. “He’s a jackass…(laughter)…Nah, now, all this stuff…I’m assuming all this stuff — where’s the pool?” he asked. “Come on, guys. Cut the president some slack. I’ve got a lot of other stuff on my plate.”

<<>>

TREACHEROUS FOOTING

Presidential comments and Terry Moran aside, the increasingly popular sport of speaking “off the record” has presented monumental challenges for those of us who report the “news” on a daily basis. Everyone seems willing to talk, but few are willing to be quoted. The reasons are many. The motivations often transparent.

The question remains: What EXACTLY is “off the record”? Does it mean “not for publication” or does it mean “not for attribution”?

Does it mean “what I tell you is the truth, and you can repeat it, but don’t attach my name to it”? Or does it mean “I’m telling you this just to get it off my chest, and it should never see the light of day in any way, shape, or form”?

So as not to be confused, in pure journalistic terms, there exists:

“Deep background” – Information may not be included in an article but can be used to enhance a view of the subject matter or to act as a guide to other leads or sources. Most deep background information is confirmed elsewhere before being reported.

“On background” – The thrust of the comments may be reported (and the source characterized in general terms), but direct quotes may not be used.

“Not for attribution” – The comments may be quoted directly, but the source may only be identified in general terms (e.g., “a government insider”).

“Unattributable” – What is said can be reported but not attributed.

“Chatham House Rules” – Participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker may be revealed.

“Lobby Terms” – Information received is never attributed, and events are not reported.

In fact, most sources today simply begin a sentence by saying: “This is off the record,” never pausing to consider or define the boundaries. For reporters, the footing is treacherous.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: ABC NEWS · Crisis Situation · Media Relations · Newspapers · Obama · Social Media · Spokespeople · Spokesperson · journalism · media training · news coverage · public relations · strategic communications · television news
Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

Coast Guard Fumble Causes Credibility Issues for the National Press

September 15, 2009 · Leave a Comment

This is from Newsblues.com

THE RUSH TO BE WRONG
Jamie McIntyre, former senior Pentagon correspondent for CNN, deconstructs the cable news network’s embarrassing Coast Guard stumble last Friday and finds it indicative of deeper problems in the television news industry. In a thoughtful essay titled “The Rush To Be Wrong, How Lower Standards Sparked the Panic on the Potomac,” he notes that CNN is one of the few networks that still routinely monitors police radios to get a jump on news. Ironically, it was realistic-sounding radio transmissions from the Coast Guard that led to CNN’s misstep.

Too Good to Check?
The first and biggest mistake CNN made was rushing to air without waiting to get confirmation from the Coast Guard. This seems so basic that it’s mindboggling how it could happen. But here’s why. CNN absolutely believed it had a big story on its hands, and it had heard it with its own ears. Everything fed that perception. The Coast Guard was saying nothing. If it were only a drill, usually they would know that right away. But if something were going on, only then would authorities be reluctant to give a statement until they could gather the facts. I’m sure if the people listening to the police radio had heard any hint that indicated the event might be an exercise, it would have prompted CNN to employ more caution. But everyone in the newsroom listened as the radio crackled with the chilling transmission, “We have expended 10 rounds.” Adrenaline flowed. The President was nearby. It was Sept 11th. Twenty minutes had passed and the Coast Guard seemed to be stonewalling, insisting it still didn’t know what was going on. Finally CNN could contain itself no longer. Convinced it was sitting on a major story, the folks in charge rolled the dice and went with it, and figured they would get confirmation later.

First with the Scoop, First with the Correction: Win/Win!
CNN knew it didn’t have the full story. But in the internet age, no one waits for the full story anymore. Not even newspapers, which publish quick writes on their web pages to stay competitive long before a more thoughtful version is published in the paper. In fact the 24/7 information marketplace seems to reward rushing to air or the web with initial, incomplete, and often inaccurate reports. This is not seen as irresponsibly spreading information before it’s confirmed, nailed down, or fleshed out, rather it’s seen as getting on the record with the news that something is happening. Then, as the story is calibrated, corrected, downscaled, and sometimes dropped by the end of the day, each revision is treated as a separate scoop. So instead of scoring just one “first” with a single accurate, complete report, the news organization racks up a series of “firsts” intended to keep the viewers/readers coming back for more. First with the bad report, first with the better report, and finally first with real report. It’s a win/win/win!

Lack of Adult Supervision
Another factor at play here is the dwindling ranks of experienced people in the newsroom, who are grounded in the basic tenets of journalism. I’ll bet some of the “graybeards” at CNN knew better than to go to air with that report, but none of them apparently were in a position to stop it. Some senior editor should have stood up and shouted, “Wait! We’re not reporting this until we nail it down.” But if any such protestation was made, it fell on deaf ears of the anxious show producers who, unfortunately, sometimes lack the wisdom and experience to make sophisticated judgments. When it comes to “TV news,” they often know more about “TV” than “news.” On most days, that’s good enough. On Friday it wasn’t.

Follow the Leader—“It’s Out There”
We also saw another phenomenon of our modern information age on display. The “it’s-out-there-so-we-have-to-report-it” justification for passing on and thereby amplifying erroneous reporting. When I first joined CNN in the early 1990s our policy was that reports from another news agency would be checked before they were re-reported. If we had any reason to think the report was inaccurate we didn’t report it. If we matched it, we reported it based on what our sources said, sometimes giving nod to whoever broke the story. If we couldn’t match it, but we thought it was important and credible, we reported it with proper attribution, and noting what our own reporting showed. By the time I left, that standard had changed. CNN’s current policy is to re-report anything from a credible major news organization right away, and check on it after the fact. The idea is to be “first” to re-report the story. But the hair-trigger policy is also a prescription for making bad reporting even worse. We saw the British news agency Reuters fall into that trap with its bulletin: “Coast Guard Fired on Suspicious Boat on Potomac River in Central Washington, DC.—CNN,” issued seven minutes after CNN first reported the story. A spokeswoman for Thomson Reuters quoted in the Washington Post was unapologetic about following CNN’s flawed reporting, “We have an obligation to our clients to publish information that could move financial markets, and this story certainly had the potential to do that,” said Courtney Dolan.

No, actually Reuters you have it backwards. When it comes to information that could move financial markets, you have a responsibility to separate rumor from fact. News organizations act like they have no choice but to be wrong, like serial killers they just can’t help themselves. That is a total abdication of responsibility, and Reuters should be embarrassed to offer that specious defense. The Associated Press, by the way, did not run the unconfirmed report.

Can You Play?
Another insidious aspect of the “rush to be wrong” trend is the speculation that fills the information vacuum until facts can be unearthed. In this respect, all-news television can reinforce the worst tendencies of its reporters. It is fed by the desire of producers to keep the coverage going on a breaking story even when they have run out of fresh information. They call their correspondents and contributors with this question, “Can you play?” Meaning can you come on the air and say something about what’s going on. The standard here is, can you “say something,” not “do you have something worthwhile to say?” This results in a lot of people babbling on the air who should be out checking the facts, instead of offering facile and fatuous observations. CNN did this by calling on its experts and correspondents to weigh in even when they obviously knew nothing about what was going on. As a friend of mine, a veteran reporter, commented to me, “What I did not hear anyone say was, ‘according to my sources at the FBI, or according my sources at the Pentagon…’”

Olympic Conclusion Jumping
There are many examples of sensational, erroneous and incomplete reports being aired, only to see them dialed back and put in perspective as the day goes on. But usually the game is played in a way that inoculates the news organization from the opprobrium heaped on CNN. For one thing the initial reports are usually qualified, with some “weasel words,” that provide cover if the report turns out to be wrong, such as, “First reports indicate,” or “We don’t know for sure, but it appears” or “It would be irresponsible to speculate, but this has all the earmarks of…” That kind of thing. Meanwhile the news organization is then free to jump to a conclusion before all the facts are in, and if by chance it has jumped to the right conclusion it can pat itself on the back for being smart and ahead of everyone else. If it jumps to the wrong conclusion it can simply point to the qualifiers, and insist well they never really said what they seemed to indicating. If CNN had said, “We don’t know what’s going on out on the Potomac, but we have overheard some radio transmissions and we are checking to see if it’s a drill or the real thing,” they would have been able to defend themselves, while still inciting unnecessary panic. Unfortunately, that’s how the hype game is usually played. The idea of waiting until you know what’s going on is just too old fashioned. MSNBC, whose first report accurately reported the event was a training exercise, was able to tweak Fox and CNN by saying their network “took a few minutes to gather the facts before going to air.”

Lack of Accountability
The last point I’ll make is that CNN should admit it screwed up big time, take its lumps, and make some changes to prevent a repeat. But instead the network seems to be trying to shift the blame onto the Coast Guard for conducting its drill on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote, “Here’s some advice: Don’t pretend to shoot terrorists near the Pentagon on Sept. 11 with the president nearby.” [For Coast Guard and CNN, an Exercise in Embarrassment – Washington Post, Sept 12, 2009] The implication seems to be that the Coast Guard failed in its planning to take into account the irresponsibility of the news media. The agency should have known that some news organization would eavesdrop on its radio transmission and irresponsibly rush to air without confirming the information, causing a panic. Well, actually, maybe that’s true. But it’s a sad commentary on the state of journalism.

McIntyre “left CNN” in December 2008. He now blogs about the military and national policy.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Crisis Communications · Crisis Situation · Media Relations · Newspapers · Spokespeople · journalism · media training · news coverage · strategic communications · television news
Tagged: , , , , , ,

Poll: News media’s credibility plunges to new low

September 14, 2009 · Leave a Comment

September 14, 2009
By: The Associated Press

The news media’s credibility is sagging along with its revenue.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans think the news stories they read, hear and watch are frequently inaccurate, according to a poll released Sunday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. That marks the highest level of skepticism recorded since 1985, when this study of public perceptions of the media was first done.

The poll didn’t distinguish between Internet bloggers and reporters employed by newspapers and broadcasters, leaving the definition of “news media” up to each individual who was questioned. The survey polled 1,506 adults on the phone in late July.

The survey found that 63 percent of the respondents thought the information they get from the media was often off base. In Pew Research’s previous survey, in 2007, 53 percent of the people expressed that doubt about accuracy.

The findings indicate U.S. newspapers and broadcasters could be alienating the audiences they are struggling to keep as they try to survive financial turmoil. Pew Research didn’t attempt to gauge how shrinking newspapers, reduced staffs and other cutbacks at news organizations are affecting people’s perceptions, although the reductions probably haven’t helped, said Michael Dimock, an associate director for the center.

The financial problems mainly stem from a steep decline in the ad sales that generate most of the media’s revenue. Newspapers’ print editions have been losing readers to the Internet, and broadcasters’ audiences are fragmenting in an age of cable TV and satellite radio.

Newspaper ad sales plunged by 29 percent, or nearly $5.5 billion, during the first half of this year, according to the Newspaper Association of America. TV ad revenue on broadcast stations dropped by 12 percent, or nearly $3 billion, during the same period, according to the Television Bureau of Advertising. Radio advertising fell by 23 percent, or $2.3 billion, according to the Radio Advertising Bureau.

The budget squeeze “means facts don’t get checked as carefully as they should,” according to Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times.

But he still believes many media outlets still go to great lengths to get the facts right and own up to their mistakes when the information is wrong.

“The great flood that goes under the heading ‘news media’ has been poisoned by junk blogs, gossip sheets, shout radio and cable-TV partisans that don’t deserve to be trusted,” Keller told The Associated Press in an e-mail.

The Internet also has made it easier to research information and find errors in news stories, said Kathleen Carroll, the AP’s executive editor. And the Web’s discussion boards and community forums spread word of mistakes when they’re found.

Carroll hopes the increased scrutiny and accountability fostered by the Internet will lead to better journalism.

“We’re in the early stages of a changing relationship between news organizations and consumers, who are becoming much more vocal about what they like, what they don’t and what they want to know,” Carroll wrote in a statement. “It’s not always pretty or pleasant, but that engagement can and does help improve coverage.”

The public’s trust in the news media began to deteriorate long before the industry’s finances began to droop and the Internet hatched more competition — as well as more gossip and speculation.

With few exceptions, the news media’s credibility has been eroding since 1985. Back then, 55 percent of the respondents believed newspapers and broadcasters generally got things right.

By 1999, the figure had fallen to 37 percent. The only time the Pew survey recorded a significant shift in the media’s favor was in November 2001, when 46 percent said they believed news stories were accurate. Dimock attributes the anomaly to the sense of goodwill that permeated the United States after the September 2001 terrorist attacks.

The most recent poll found just 29 percent believed news reports had the facts straight. (Eight percent said they didn’t know.)

Similarly, only 26 percent of the respondents said the press is careful to avoid bias. The figure was 36 percent in 1985.

As has been the case for years, television remains the most popular news source. The poll found 71 percent of people depend on TV for national and international news. Some 42 percent said they relied on the Internet, 33 percent turned to newspapers and 21 percent tuned into the radio. (The figures don’t add to up 100 percent because some people cited more than one medium.)

A decade ago, only 6 percent of the survey participants said they leaned on the Web for their national and international news while 42 percent relied on newspapers. (TV also led in 1999, at 82 percent).

The poll didn’t try to determine whether the people who cited the Internet as their primary news source were reading Web sites run by newspapers and broadcasters.

Television also is the leading outlet for local news, with 64 percent relying on that medium. Newspapers ranked as the second-most popular source for local news at 41 percent, trailed by radio at 18 percent and the Internet at 17 percent. In this case as well, people could name more than one source.

Even as more people than ever don’t believe everything in the news, Pew found that the public still seems to value the media. When asked how they would feel about a news outlet closing, 82 percent said it would be an important loss if there were no local TV news and 74 percent said it would be a major blow to lose their local newspaper.

Keller suspects many people cherish the newspaper they read or TV news program that they watch.

“Just as polls routinely show that people hold Congress in low esteem but tend to like their own congressman, I think the public is suspicious of the media in general but tends to trust the particular news organization they turn to for news,” Keller wrote

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Media Relations · Newspapers · journalism · news coverage · television news
Tagged: , , , ,

Media Relations Experts and Crisis Communicators MUST READ: WTKR Reporter Barbara Ciara’s Response to “Her Attack”

August 26, 2009 · Leave a Comment

This a MUST READ for anyone who works in media relations or crisis communications. This article by WTKR reporter Barbara Ciara clearly puts into the mind of many broadcast investigative reporters who take on stories as a mission. If you have ever had a client who has been under attack by one of these reporters, you know there is nothing you can say or do to influence fair coverage in the story.

A few days ago, Ciara and her photographers ambushed a couple of business people SHE SAYS has been ripping off Virginia job seekers. The original video shows what happened outside the courthouse.

Now, charges have been flying back and forth between Ciara and the company. For some strange reason, Ciara published a column criticizing the local paper and anyone who disagreed with her campaign to protect the public.

You can read the column here.

For me, this is the most dangerous part of the column: “As a journalist I consider it my duty to provide a voice to the voiceless, O’Leary has much to answer for. While some newspaper reporters may be satisfied with the standard could-not-be-reached-for-comment, we no longer are.”

Whoa…

This means let’s throw Journalism 101, the constitution, the legal system, and the bill rights out the window.

When will reporters realize that the people you are pursuing are NOT required to speak to you? In many serious situations, the subjects are advised by their attorneys or ordered by the courts not to speak.

Let’s not forget that news reporting is an ego driven business. Often in newsrooms a reporter is considered a failure if he or she doesn’t land the big interview. These ambush stories are strategically designed to bully or publicly humiliate an individual to the point where they have no other choice but to give a half-baked interview that basically doesn’t help their position at all. However the reporters and their producers are quite pleased that their agendas are satisfied.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Crisis Communications · Crisis Situation · Media Relations · media training · news coverage · strategic communications
Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

Another News Team Attacked – Orlando

August 26, 2009 · Leave a Comment

The ambush interview technique is when persistent reporters show up unexpectedly at your front door. This usually happens right after a tragedy or an incident involving a family member or neighbor. The reporters will demand an instant interview with you whether you want to do it or not. They will often say they want “your side” of the story. This is one of the most common ways reporters advance stories. This is often one of the most frustrating and upsetting things that can happen to a family that is overwhelmed by the stress or the great loss.  Every media relations professional will advise you to never consent to an interview unless you have prepared a clear, concise and compelling message.

Monday, two Orlando news teams were attacked while attempting the ambush interview. This is what happened according to the WESH-TV web site:

A WESH 2 News crew came under attack on Monday while investigating a story about two teenagers who were reportedly working at a strip club in Brevard County. The Playmates Nightclub in Cocoa remains under investigation for allegedly having a 15-year-old and 17-year-old working there in skimpy attire.The reporter and photographer were looking for one of the teenagers but encountered a furious grandmother instead.A videotape recorded during the incident showed the grandmother charging the photographer with a garden hoe. One swing landed squarely on the camera.Nobody was hurt in the attack. Police reviewed the videotape.The investigation into the situation at the strip club in continuing.

You can review the video HERE

Looking at videos like this lead me to believe that it’s only a matter of time before there is a serious incident.

Reporters must realize that carrying a camera doesn’t give them special privileges or will protect them during emotionally charged confrontations. The general public needs to be educated on how the media works so they don’t overreact when a pesky reporter shows up at their door step.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Crisis Communications · Crisis Situation · Media Relations · journalism · media training · news coverage
Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,