Published: Jan. 12, 2010 by Long Island Business News

Clement: The Web works best when it’s neutral

If losing the Food Network and HGTV is upsetting you, here’s something else to rock your world.
Much in the same way the Cablevision/Scripps food fight shows that on any given day, you could innocently turn on your TV and find nothing where something once was, so too can information disappear from your computer searches.

Don’t blame Google.

In this case, it’s your Internet access provider that may decide, at any given moment, to cut you off from information it doesn’t want you to have. (Seem like you’re living in North Korea? Don’t be silly: Its broadband policy is far superior to that of the United States. But you get the idea.)

The debate currently raging around the country in media policy circles centers on proposed net neutrality legislation, which seeks to keep the Internet an even playing ground to allow you access to whatever information you want, as opposed to what information your access provider wants you to have. Without assurances of net neutrality, access providers have the ability to determine what information comes out at the top of your searches – which gives them latitude to service their advertisers over your needs. They could also conveniently slow down access to information about competitors of favored advertisers.

To sum up the First Amendment portion of the debate: Scary, huh?

Techies tend to side against the legislation, noting that the popularity of the Web combined with increasing needs for bandwidth makes change necessary, or else Internet innovation will be stifled. It’s really not much to hang your hat on, especially when the folks who line up behind this side of the argument are the biggest cable operators in the country, including AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner. (Interesting how, on a local level, Verizon is the victim of Cablevision deciding it won’t run Verizon ads in the newspaper owned and operated by CVC. Lacking net neutrality, the door is open to Cablevision to wipe Verizon out of Optimum Online search results.) Interesting, too, how those with such strong lobbying power always court major distrust among their customers. In this case, it serves to give added weight to the need for net neutrality. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that the poster child for restricted Internet access is China.

On the home front, we face something that is an even bigger threat: The problem when your access provider is also your primary news content provider.

Jaci Clement is executive director of the Fair Media Council.

Published: Oct. 7, 2009 Long Island Business News

Blame credibility for media’s demise

by Jaci Clement, Executive Director, Fair Media Council

What if what’s ailing the news business has nothing to do with the Internet?

A new study by the Pew Research Center for People & the Press shows public distrust of the news media has grown to an all-time high. Not only does 63 percent of the public doubt the accuracy of the news reported, 60 percent believe the news is laden with political bias.

Yet, the media fervently chronicles the rise of the Internet as the culprit behind traditional media’s demise. Technology is blamed for everything from speeding up news cycles to fractionalizing audience share to new competition from social media.

Sounds plausible, right? Not so fast: Interestingly enough, there’s yet to be a cause-and-effect story that ties together eroding credibility and diminishing audiences.

When credibility is your business and you’ve been diagnosed with a massive case of mistrust, it would stand to reason that technology is merely a symptom, not the disease.

Put another way: What business can get away with failing in its core mission and expect to survive?

News has strayed from its fundamental purpose. What once was a public necessity has morphed into meaningless filler and entertaining banter. In fact, the news business has knowingly and willfully exchanged currency, trading in its credibility for likeability. Now that the industry is no longer needful (read: credible) to the public, it needs to be wanted. After all, if people like you, they’ll make time for you.

The strategy became most transparent and best symbolized by taking the chair of Old Iron Pants and bequeathing it to America’s Sweetheart.

But likeability isn’t working. Let’s blame technology.

Ironically, technology actually could be the savior of the news industry – if it knew how to use it.  Wrongfully, the industry decided technology equals faster reporting, less time to check facts and no time to put issues into perspective. That hasn’t worked out so well, as anemic print editions, shuttered publications and bleeding financials so attest.

The next cure-all attempt: Package and deliver news so fresh it hasn’t happened yet. Reporting on speculation frees the news to showcase its personality – and it absolves reporters of pesky fact checking.
Instead, the public is moving toward social media, the success of which relies heavily on the public’s ability to create their own circles of trust and share news, opinions and information from people they believe in.

This is the story you won’t see anywhere.

Clement: In death do us part … with reality

The obituary has a special place in journalism. It’s a place where journalistic standards cease to exist, and objectivity is willingly abandoned.

The irony here is the news media goes to great lengths to say pretty nasty things about people while they are alive, but once dead, those sinners are transformed into instant saints. (Couple this with one of the first things learned in J. School – “Can’t libel a dead person” – and the whole purpose of journalism gets turned on its ear.) We’re so accustomed to the media mistreating live individuals, that when Newsday did a multiple-page retrospective on public relations wiz Gary Lewi, the story resulted in rumors of his imminent demise.

When it comes to obits, there’s a double standard in the amount of coverage a death gets. Celebrities, of course, command the lion’s share, but if someone who works in the news dies, then that person gets the celebrity treatment. When a young Newsday reporter passed away, the paper responded with pages of tribute – the kind of coverage it normally reserves for icons and former heads of state.

Obits even treat private individuals in a special way. Have you ever noticed how it’s always the “loving husband and father” or “devoted wife” who has ceased living? It’s never the liar, cheater or thief, or the two-timing bastard who would never pick up after himself. These kinds of people apparently get to live forever.

Because of what goes on in the creation of obituaries, it’s amusing The New York Times has responded to its own need for better policing by added an obituary editor to its staff. This comes after many embarrassing recent mistakes for the Times, not the least of which was the Walter Cronkite obit containing seven errors.

Perhaps, though, the news coverage of the death of Diane Schuler highlights the problem with the obituary in general: In death, the news media hailed the woman as a saint. On second blush, it appears she was only too human. Yet the media’s response is now one of anger, as they feel betrayed by a woman few, if any of them, ever met.

The reality is the news media betrays itself whenever it files an obit that focuses on fiction instead of fact.

And, by the way, rumors of Mr. Lewi’s death have been greatly exaggerated.  

Jaci Clement is Executive Director of the Fair Media Council. She may be reached at jaci.clement@fairmediacouncil.org. This article originally appeared on Aug. 13, 2009 in Long Island Business News.

Clement: Beware the media

The double-edged sword of media coverage is a stark reality for those in the public eye.

Congressman Peter King started a maelstrom with his comments about Michael Jackson. He tried to criticize the media for too much coverage of Wacko Jacko, and it backfired on him. For the record, fans and mourners expressed their dismay at how the King of Pop was treated by the King in Congress  - and we know this because the media reacted by giving more news coverage to the very topic King criticized them for covering in the first place. Please note: There’s image, there’s reality and then there’s common sense. When dealing with the media strive for the former and disregard the latter.

The only reality in the world of perception is that the media, and hence, the public will grasp one concept of who they think you are as a person. That one concept can turn from strength to weakness in a heartbeat. Eliot Spitzer was hailed for his toughness but, once in office, he turned into a run-of-the-mill bully. Bill Clinton was reduced to a charmer. And W., no matter your politics, was a dope.

Once the media assigns one dimension of personality to someone in the news, it’s nearly impossible to change in the public’s mind. The thought process goes something like this:

King: What’s he angry about now?

Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi: What’s he want now?

Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy: What’s he penny pinching now?

King can’t possibly be angry all the time, but his media coverage begs to differ: A Google search of the congressman reveals thousands of “angry” moments. To be fair, he’s had plenty of documented moments when he’s “furious,” too.

Suozzi, however, is seldom angry. Ambition, that’s his gig. The media’s portrayal of his ambition has evolved from that of a knight arriving just in time to save Nassau into that of a spoiled brat. Too much coverage of ambition can leave the public feeling left out or, worse, not good enough.

With Levy, it’s all about the budget; that’s been the one constant message the public has received from the get-go. But there’s budget for good and, well, not so good. Coverage of the Suffolk exec has made it clear Levy is all about cost cutting. Trouble is, people cost money and public servants serve people.

The irony is sometimes, image and reality are worlds apart and sometimes, they’re not.

Jaci Clement is the executive director of the Fair Media Council. This article appeared July 14, 2009 in Long Island Business News.

Clement: How To Save The News Media

Did I get your attention? Good. Working in the news taught me that trick. Working with the public has taught me even more.

Below are observations, designed specifically for your feedback. There’s been enough bloodshed in the industry, I think you’ll agree. So here’s my requested two cents, for whatever they’re worth in the time of Great Recession:

Briefly, about innovation. Everyone in the news industry says they’re being innovative and trying to reinvent themselves. I don’t believe that, and here’s why: Everyone in the news industry is doing exactly the same thing, but expecting to generate different results.The trouble is, everybody doing the same thing is not what it means to be innovative now, is it?

Briefly, about technology. There’s something about technology that makes otherwise brilliant people lose their minds. The news media has been steadfast in its collective belief that they’ve lost their readers and viewers because of technology. Reality check: Your readers, viewers and, yes, your advertisers aren’t lost. They got up and walked away from you. They’ve complained for years about how you’ve failed them, and you, being the grand institution that you have become, failed to listen. Your decline in circ/viewership and revenues is due the fact that your audience has finally united and voted: They don’t like the way you are doing your job. Quit blaming technology for that. Start taking it as a personal rebuff.

Briefly, about credibility. The news media has gotten away from its fundamental purpose. Last time I checked, you’re supposed to report what just happened. Instead, you’re spending way too much time predicting what will happen, and blaming it on technology, for making you speed up the process. You’ve always had deadlines. Stop acting like deadlines are new. The difference between then and now is you’re trying to report the news before it happens and embarrassing yourself. If you thought the public hadn’t notice you’re making up for your lack of facts with a heavy dose of speculation, guess what? They’ve noticed. That’s why they’ve walked away.

Briefly, about business. We’ve watched media consolidation for well over a decade, and it follows the same path. Much space has been devoted to the concept that a healthy media outlet should save an ailing one. If we’ve learned anything in recent history, it’s this: A healthy media outlet buying an ailing media outlet simply equals one big, ailing institution. Forget about being the biggest kid on the block. It’s time to divest and show how good you are at what you do best.

Briefly, about institutions. The trends in the popularity of social media clearly illustrate the public’s march away from institutions and into the arms of community. Social media gives them the ability to create their own personal media universe, and include hand-picked people they trust. You, there, are an institution. They do not trust you, for reasons stated above, as well as for the fact they are tired of trying to decipher whether or not the toothpaste you recommended in the home improvement section as an excellent filler for small holes in walls is actually a product produced and promoted by your corporate master.

Briefly, about budgets. Oh my, how we’ve lied about our budgets over the years. We’ve bundled all our products together, and given away freebies to make for enticing package buys. Now that you’re trying to be innovative, you’re pulling out numbers from those bundled numbers and saying, “Ah ha! The growth was in the Internet.” Not so fast. Business types move numbers around to affirm what the boss wants to hear, so those numbers you so cherish at the moment, well, they haven’t earned the right to tell tales. Small wonder reporters are steadfast in their belief that numbers lie.

Briefly, about information. Those with the ability to gather information are the purveyors of knowledge. That made you power brokers in the past, and you can reclaim the title, once your wounded pride allows you to bounce back. Here’s the irony of the whole situation when it comes to the future of news: You possess the skill set to uncover the information and design the plan for your very salvation. But, whenever journalists are faced with issues that are actually important to them, they abandon all reasoning. What’s up with that?

Have enough? Good Now then: Let’s focus on moving forward.

Learn from the best, not other media. Let’s be real, all news websites, TV news and newspapers are cookie cutter in their approach to deliver their product to their audience. Stop that. Looking to other media for ideas right now is like going to great lengths to recruit the worse players in the league. Break out of the mold and look for inspiration in unlikely places. What does Apple do that’s so cool they’re the No. 1 brand in the country? Why are people rushing out to buy (fill in the blank) today? Use unusual ideas to separate you from the pack.

Actually listen. Sigh. Is there a news site out there that doesn’t allow the reader to talk back after a story’s been published? Hey, great idea, yet it’s meaningless to the news process. Those voices need to be part of the news gathering leading up to the story. Instead, you’re giving them the ability to talk to deaf ears, because you’re done. You’ve said all you’re going to say and you’ve moved on. Why not offer an internet café on your site that allows people to log on to talk about what’s happening in their neighborhoods, at the PTA meetings and that great big pothole on the corner that swallowed up two kids the other day. Use the info for news gathering… just like you were out on the street.

Remember me. The thing about news is that it changes everyday, yet I don’t. I am your reader. Forgetting about me from day to day hurts my feelings. If there’s one thing banks do well with websites, it’s that they made them “sticky.” After all that info you pour into online bill pay, it’s going to take a miracle to get you to switch banks. Use the same idea. What’s “sticky” on your site? Do you remember I’m interested in the world economy? Or that I hang out in Huntington Village? Or that I’m much more interested in what Carla Bruni-Sarkozy is wearing, and not so much Michelle Obama? Use your site to gather intelligence about me, so I can have that personal experience I get on Facebook. Why not be the Facebook of News?

Another way to show you remember me: That article I read yesterday. You made an error. Make a good faith effort to contact me or grab my attention and let me know. Don’t bury it somewhere and expect me to go out of my way to try to find your fix. Bring your mistake to my attention and, guess what, I’ll start to trust you again.

Target me. I don’t want to be annoyed with ads that pop up or expand and get in the way of my reading. I wouldn’t mind you streaming ads across the bottom or top of the site, but they need to be targeted to me. Remember me? I need furniture, a good painter and I’m willing to travel up to 25 miles for Richard Tyler shoes. Those are the ads I want to see. Forget the concept of “classified” and “display.” Use geotracking to determine where I am and where I can find what I want before I know I want it. Don’t show me what I don’t want. Combine the concept of K-Mart’s Blue Light Special and high tech, and what do you get? Tweets that Nordstrom is having its annual anniversary sale, and let me know how discounted those Tyler shoes are, too. I don’t want email; it’s passé. I no longer want your email alert twice a day, either. That’s just not personalized enough for me. Personalize your site for me, with news and information and advertising I need, and I’ll make it my home page, I swear. What will separate you from the pack of all those news aggregators out there, like iGoogle, is your local content.

Value me. The ballgame of media has changed, so should the way media illustrates its value to its advertisers. If you had 50,000 print readers and 10,000 web readers last year, and 45,000 print readers and 16,000 web readers this year, have you really lost? Do something media never does: Look at the big picture, not just one angle of the story. Circulation is down, yet readership is up. Knowing that, are things so dire? Use personalized online capabilities to offer your advertisers qualified leads. If you know 10,000 of your readers are looking for new kitchen appliances in the next three months, isn’t that far more valuable to an advertiser than saying you have 40,000 readers you don’t know at all?

Free me. There’s an age-old debate as to whether or not news and information vital to the health and well being of the public should be free or paid content. The debate begins anew with the media trying, once again, to charge for online content. Something to keep in mind: Even if all news providers decide to charge for online content and force the public’s hand into paying for news they’ve grown accustomed to getting for free, they must bear in mind success could be limited due to one thing: VHS television is free and FCC mandated to provide the public with vital news and information, as well as serve as the first responders to an emergency. Also, 85 percent of the American public relies on TV news. If you think what you have is valuable enough to charge for, give it a go. If you’re not sure, understand you may be putting the final nail in your coffin. Another thing to keep in mind: I know it’s tempting to get rid of the printed newspaper and go strictly to an online vehicle, but note this: only 55 percent of the American public has broadband. The other 45 percent either rely on dial up or have no internet access. How will you service them without a print product? Perhaps geographical numbers will dictate which areas get newspaper delivery and which areas get online news. There’s also a lifestyle choice between reading a hard-copy newspaper and an online version, as well as the public’s great want of a printed newspaper to commemorate milestones in history. Obama was elected; newsstands everywhere sold out. Has the public really lost its appetite for the printed word? Not necessarily. What to do about that? Ask your readers.

Now what? Your print product looks dated. But guess what? So does television news. All those streamers running across the bottom of the screen are nothing more than band-aids pretending to be high-tech answers to the future of news. The newsroom of the future needs to capitalize on how easy it is to gather information and get to know your readers, and create a product that leverages credibility with respectability. That’s what’s missing now. There’s actually another debate happening in media circles these days: Is mainstream media dead? Think about it. What does the reader/viewer want today? Give I cannot get a million other places, be it in print or online or TV. Studies show the vast majority of news these days focused on very few stories. The public complaint that “everything looks the same” is not only well founded, but documented. Treat me special, like an individual, and I’m yours.