my 2 cents

Is Facebook Journalism's #1 Enemy?

 

A column in London's The Guardian a few days ago asked if Facebook is the leading threat to newspapers and, more broadly, journalism itself.   The writer, Roy Greenslade, said that by luring away readers and advertisers, the social media site is jeopardizing newspapers and, at the same time, narrowing the news agenda, which he says poses a threat to journalism.

The issue of losing readers and advertisers is something newspapers have been facing for decades, beginning when TV became the dominant media form.  But over the past 15 years or so, newspapers find themselves in the same basket as other "traditional" media including TV, as digital has taken over.  Most papers have embraced, perhaps reluctantly at first, digital with branded sites of their own.  They're still struggling to find a way to monetize their news sites, and digital ads so far have not fully replaced print ads in terms of how much advertisers are willing to pay for them.

What's a newer issue, though, is the impact Facebook is having on what we perceive as news and the accuracy of what gets reported.   The Pew Research Center published a study a few months ago showing that 66 percent of Facebook users get their news via Facebook.  True, that's not 66 percent of the U.S. population, but with an estimated 60 million American Facebook users, it's still a very big number -- roughly 40 million people.  And as we know, it's not just Millennials on Facebook -- in fact, almost all of my Boomer friends are on Facebook to some degree.

So with 40 million people reading Facebook, here's where the problem lies, as articulated in the Guardian story.  What's considered news on Facebook is not determined by traditional journalistic standards  After coming under criticism earlier this year, Facebook adjusted the algorithms it uses to determine what's "trending."  But "trending" is still largely based on what people are posting about, so if the Brangelina split trends high because it's juicy gossip about a big celebrity couple, it may push off the radar legitimate but less sexy news like the plight of refugees leaving Syria or starvation and slavery in some parts of Africa or the continuing erosion of the Arctic ice shelf.

To make it worse, other news sources including many of the "traditional" media like the networks and major newspapers now look at what's trending on Facebook to help determine what they report.   

And there's another risk to relying what's reported as news on Facebook.  News can easily be manipulated, with information that's bogus attributed to normally reliable sources.  It then gets shared and reposted, taking on a life of its own as real news.  I saw an example of this just a few weeks ago when a friend shared an article about saying something outrageous Trump supposedly said.  I'm not a Trump supporter at all, but this seemed just too crazy ...even for Trump.  The article referred to a story in The Washington Post, but when I searched the WaPo site, no such story existed.  But there it was on Facebook, something obviously incorrect being passed along as real news with the Washington Post referenced as the source.

So yes, Facebook poses a real threat to the health of other news media.  But the larger threat is the potential damage its misuse can do to the journalistic process -- a process that the Constitution recognizes as an important way to keep us informed and our politicians and business leaders honest.

 

 

 

 

The News Revolution

 

But is it always real news?

 

Back in the 1940's and 50's, most Americans got their news from daily newspapers.  Most major cities and many smaller ones had more than one paper -- the morning paper with news from the previous day and early evening, and the afternoon or evening paper with news of that day.

Then along came TV, which quickly became the dominant news source for most of us.  And it wasn't too long before network newscasts had to share their audience with cable news - first CNN and then several other 24-hour cable news channels.  All-news radio stations in bigger markets also had - and continue to have - big audiences.

But the internet has changed the equation yet again.  It's not just the more "legitimate" online news sources like the news sites of newspapers and TV stations, and other sites like Huffington Post.  The somewhat startling news is that social media that has become the dominant source of news, at least for younger Americans.

A new study by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism finds that 28 percent of Americans ages 18 - 24 cite social media as their primary source of news.  Twenty-four percent of that same age demo say their primary source of news is TV.  It's even higher among people who search for news on the smartphones --  48%.

Facebook is the most popular social media site for young people to get their news, with 44% saying that's their top go-to place for news.  YouTube comes in at 19%, Twitter at 10% and WhatsApp at 8%.

What troubles me about these numbers is how easy and commonplace it is for online readers to get misinformation that's disguised as news. It's not unusual to see Facebook and Twitter posts that refer to an article in a trusted major news source, but the facts get twisted, often intentionally.  Just the other day, a friend told me about an article she saw in The Washington Post that had some troubling information about Trump's mental state.  As much as I dislike Trump, the story just didn't sound right.  I had my friend show me the article and it turned out to be a Facebook post that referred to the Post story.  But there was no link and when I went directly to the Washington Post site, there was no such story. So someone along the way put out a false post, incorrectly citing a major news outlet as the source.  And it got re-posted online countless times. 

This happens a lot on social media, so if nearly a third of young people are relying on social media for news, I'd say we have a problem. 

 

A Sad Commentary

 

No, this isn’t a post about the current state of politics and the presidential campaign, although that IS a sad commentary on our society. This is about a survey, reported in MediaPost’s Social Media Daily that shows we prefer to stay in touch via social media rather than with face-to-face communication.

We’ve all seen scenes like this – a group of young people sitting silently around a restaurant table – all looking down at their cellphones. In recent years, that scenario has changed so that it’s not only young people, but people of all ages – including us boomers – guilty of texting rather than talking.

The survey of some 12,000 people worldwide found that 68 percent prefer to communicate with others online rather than face-to-face.  So, as MediaPost writer Erik Sass posits in his story, social media is making us anti-social.

I can understand – and I’m guilty of – the preference to stay in touch with some people online rather than in person. And that can extend to online versus contact via a phone call. Often, when I have a quick question, it’s faster to send an email. Call on the phone and you have to go through the “hi, how are you” stuff. With email, here’s what I need to know or what I want to tell you, perhaps ended with a “regards” or “hope all is well.” And that's it.

If it’s more than a quick question or if it’s something in business where there needs to be some real-time back & forth to spur creativity or consensus, face-to-face or at least ear-to-ear is best. 

Social media, especially Facebook, can be great for keeping up with distant friends and relatives. But for the real inside scoop, with real emotion and real empathy, it’s hard to replace face-to-face or ear-to-ear. 

Online, even ALL CAPS or cute emoticons just can’t convey real feelings or more subtle undertones. And there are risks to online communication.  Think about how many times have you’ve seen a poorly-worded email or post give a wrong impression to the reader, maybe creating a problem where one hadn’t existed?

Social media has its place in our lives, for sure. But it can’t – or shouldn’t – replace direct face-to-face or ear-to-ear communications. What a boring and sterile world that would be.

When will we learn?

 

People just don't seem to get it.   What you put online is NOT private.

The latest example of stupid behavior comes from people who should know better -- execs at a major ad agency.  

Campbell Ewald had to fire its CEO after a staffer posted a racist email.  The email was sent in October, but it didn't come to light until someone sent it to Adweek, which published it in January.  Within days, the agency lost three clients, led by insurer USAA and then by Henry Ford Healthcare System and financial services firm Edward Jones.

A few years ago, one of the biggest public relations agencies, Hill & Knowlton, had to fire a senior VP after he stupidly tweeted how he hated going to Memphis, which he called a boondocks town.  He was on his way to a meeting with FedEx, whose headquarters and operations hub is -- guess where - in Memphis.

You would think people at ad and PR agencies would know that what goes online might be seen by others.  Duh.

Today's Autograph

 

Tuning through the channels a few days ago, I happened to land on C-SPAN.  I caught the very end of a campaign speech by Carly Fiorina.  She’s a good speaker, but what she said wasn’t what caught my interest.  It was what happened after her speech that was telling.

After her talk, she did what most candidates do.  She came off the stage and walked into the audience to work the crowd.  And this is what struck me as most interesting.

Not too long ago, she would have been shaking hands, exchanging a few words one-on-one with people, and signing autographs.  But as I watched her in the crowd, which was mostly younger, only two people asked for an autograph.  She shook a few hands… but only a few.  It looked like she had a brief conversation with one person.  But with all the others – perhaps 40 or 50 people – the only words that were exchanged seemed to come from audience members, saying something like “Would you..” and “Thank you.” 

They were asking the candidate to pose with them for a selfie.  And she happily complied, as each person put his or her arms around Fiorina or put their face pressing right up against hers.  Kind of close-up and personal, it seemed.   It was a selfie assembly line, and the candidate adeptly moved from person to person, cell phone to cell phone without missing a beat.  

At first, I scoffed.  But as I thought about it, I realized that the selfie actually IS much more personal than an autograph, even one written to the autograph-seeker by name.  And unlike an autograph, which most of us don’t frame and put on a shelf in our living room, a selfie with a celebrity can be blown up, framed and displayed prominently. 

And it’s a chance for the person to throw it out there immediately on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, et al, showing the world their brush with fame –or actually, touch with fame, smiling check-to-cheek, arm wrapped around the celebrity.  It can be shared instantly with dozens or hundreds of friends and online acquaintances, which is a lot more than the than couple of dozen friends or relatives who might happen to spot it in your living room. 

For the candidate, it’s a windfall, expanding the reach of her appearance to perhaps thousands more than the attendance of her live audience.

Some marketers have found ways to capitalize on “the new autograph” – putting a brand mascot or logo in places where people will take selfies and share them, for example.  It’s opening up entire new ways for brands to engage with consumers and share the branded experience with all their friends. 

We’ll be seeing more of it, I’m sure, as we surf our Facebook and Instagam feeds.  

 

 

 

Red Cup Controversy ... It Must be a Really Slow News Day

 

I was a bit surprised when I saw an item Monday on CBS This Morning about the supposed controversy brewing over Starbucks' plans to have a simple red cup this Christmas season, replacing cups decorated with snowflakes and reindeer from years past.  Some Starbucks fans evidently voiced their displeasure on social media and the media picked up on it.  Even the New York Times had a story about it in Monday's editions.

The Times even quoted one wacko from his Facebook page... “Starbucks REMOVED CHRISTMAS from their cups because they hate Jesus,” Joshua Feuerstein, who described himself as an evangelist, Internet and social media personality, wrote."

Sure, Starbucks hates Jesus.  Oh Jesus, c'mon!

The Times went on to wonder.. "Perhaps it was part of the company’s intent to generate a little buzz, however negative and extreme some of the instant reviews sounded."  Ya' think?

And the media fell for it.

Sure, such a silly story is a nice break from all the heavy news we're dealing with these days.  But still... is this really news?  I guess because it's on social media, the real media think it's real news.

Or, maybe it's just been a slow news day.  Somehow, though, I don't think that's the case.

Is email losing ground in the workplace?

 

 

Huffington Post is working on a story that asks if email is losing ground as a communications tool in business. I don't know what the reporter will find, but I don't see any tools now readily available that could replace it soon. It seems to be the preferred way for people to communicate in business, for a variety of reasons.

Email enables you to communicate at your convenience...no worry about time zones, business hours, workday vs weekend. Got something to say or to ask at 11 at night? Email away. You might have a response waiting in your inbox when you wake up, if not sooner. An email can be as long or as short as you want. No limits like 140 characters on Twitter. And you don't have to go through the time-consuming niceties of the "hello, how are you?" that come with a phone call. Face-to-face meetings and phone calls can be tricky to arrange and more time-consuming than an email or text.

Texting is more immediate, but I think texting etiquette would caution against sending a work text in the middle of the night. Texting seems to demand immediate attention, which could be seen as an intrusion, while an email can easily sit quietly in an inbox for hours until the intended recipient gets around to checking email and opening yours.

Facebook, LinkedIn, other social media don't seem to have an urgency to them. Most often they're used for personal things and random chatter.

There is certainly a risk in the one-way written communication, though. The recipient of an email can totally miss tone, humor, sarcasm, anger or frustration that the human voice can communicate, and the results can be devastating.

A recent survey, reported by Adweek, shows that most millennials (85 percent of them) prefer to meet or communicate in person with co-workers. Tied for the second preferred form of communication are phone calls and emails. (And we thought the Millennials are only about social media.)

So while other forms of communication may gain in popularity, I still see email and good ol' phone calls leading the way in how we communicate in business. But let's see what Huff Post has to say about it. I'll be watching for their story.

Any thoughts on this?

Say nothing, rather than get called out on social media

 

Bill Bergman, a marketing instructor at the University of Richmond's B-school, notes an interesting trend in a recent commentary in MediaPost's Agency Daily.  He says college students he's teaching seem to be afraid to speak out in class for fear of being embarrassed by classmates who might call them out via social media.  So they keep their hands down in class and their mouths shut.

These are kids, he says, who have grown up seeing the impact of a mistake or bad judgment on social media.  They've seen firsthand that once something is online it can haunt you forever, possibly impacting one's ability to land a job or get into grad school.

So rather than get called out via a tweet, they seem to keep their opinions to themselves, Bergman believes.  He thinks, from what he sees in his students, that by the time they reach their senior year in college, they hit a social media saturation point. It's not that social media has lost its importance to them, but rather they're getting caught up with other priorities and pressures that demand their attention -- studies and the upcoming hunt for the next step in their lives, finding a job or continuing thier education.

Bergman notes recent grads seem to be less involved with social media than current students.  The explanation, he writes, may be "a boss, a cubicle and a 10 p.m. bedtime help diminish the social media habit."  And they realize, as they mature, that it's more important to protect your real personality than to build "a contrived popularity" through silly or controversial tweets and potentially awkward photos posted on Instagram.

After college, he writes, young adults "begin to recognize that college is really created for the young - and so too is the extensive use of social media platforms."

It's called growing up and becoming responsible.

Is Twitter trending downward?

 

More about Twitter than I can say in 140 characters...

 

The latest internet consumer study, reported in Mediapost's Social Media & Marketing Daily, shows Twitter, which was touted as the next best thing when it burst onto the scene, has slipped a bit.

The percentage of respondents using Twitter dropped two points to 34%. Twitter remains a major social media factor, though, behind Facebook and LinkedIn. FB remains the gorilla in the room, dominating with 77% of consumers saying they use it. LinkedIn is a distant second at 37%, followed by Twitter. Newer platform Pinterest jumped to the number four spot with 26%.

Highlighting the fickleness of social media (or maybe more the fickle nature of teens), FB continues to lose younger users who are migrating in droves to Pinterest. It's the platform of the day. (Remember MySpace?)

Twitter has proven popular as a way for fans of TV shows to share their thoughts in real-time as a show airs. And reality contest shows like NBC's "The Voice" have used Twitter not only to engage viewers, but also as an instant voting tool to let viewers decide if a contestant stays or goes.

The survey found that 52% of those who don't use Twitter make that choice because they feel it's "a waste of time."  I have to admit that was my initial impression when I joined soon after the platform launched. It seemed that all I saw was people tweeting really inane things like "The sun just came up" or "Can't decide whether to have a blueberry or corn muffin." Like I care (about the muffin, not the sun).

I have found Twitter useful as a way to point people to my blog posts. And early on, I participated in a few PR chats in real-time. Didn't learn anything about PR, but it got me many of my almost 1,000 followers.

So despite the dip in the latest user survey, I'm pretty sure Twitter will be around for some time, even as new platforms continue to pop up. By the way, I couldn't have expressed these thoughts in 140 characters. Blogging is still alive and well, despite predictions that it, like Twitter, would disappear.

A Deadly Wandering -- A Warning about Distracted Driving

 

At a national conference on traffic safety a few weeks ago, I briefly met Matt Richtel, whose Pulitzer Prize-winning series on distracted driving in The New York Times helped bring this important issue to public attention.  I'm just finishing reading an advance copy of his new book - A Deadly Wandering: A Tale of Tragedy and Redemption in the Age of Attention. (The book from William Morrow/Harper Collins Publishers, goes on sale later this week.)

I think the book should be required reading for anyone applying for a driver's license, as well as for those of us who already drive.  It's easy reading.  The book, although non-fiction, reads like a fast-paced novel and the reader gets to really know and understand the various characters in the story.  It tells of Reggie Shaw, in every way a model teenager who, like so many of his peers, used his cellphone to text while he was driving.  Distracted, he crossed the yellow line and sideswiped an oncoming car, which caused a crash that killed two rocket scientists.  The book chronicles the story of the driver, the victims, their families and the lawyers and prosecutors involved in the legal case that ensued.

What's important about this book is that it explains the science behind our addiction to texting and other mobile device functions. Yes, there is scientific proof, which the book explains, that texting or even just talking on a phone while driving is extremely dangerous.  It takes us through, in easy to understand terms, the reasons we cannot multitask, despite assertions from so many -- especially young people who've grown up with texting -- that we can drive while doing other tasks.

Working on the PR side of traffic safety for some 20 years now, I've met with and heard from so many people who've had their lives dramatically changed by bad decisions behind the wheel.  For many years, the culprit was alcohol, which still remains a real problem. Drowsiness is a significant factor as well, although driving drowsy is usually not a conscious decision we make.

Texting while driving is a conscious decision.  And now that it's become clear that it does impact our ability to drive safely, there is absolutely no reason to do it.  Legislators in 44 states have recognized that by making it illegal to text while driving.  So if for no other reasion than risking a ticket and points on your license, all of us should refrain from this dangerous behavior.

But as Matt Richtel points out in his book, so many of us, knowing the physical dangers and the risk of a ticket and points, continue to text and talk on cellphones while we drive.  There are now devices that can prevent people from texting or talking while driving, like an app made by one of my clients, LifeSaver.  It's very inexpensive and simple to use, but it still requires a voluntary step by a parent or spouse.

Richtel reported last week about plans by the cellular industry to have a device that comes with new cars that will prevent any cellphone usage while the car is in motion.  But, if it ever actually happens, it's still at least a few years away.

What I think is needed to stop what former Sec. of Transportation Ray LaHood called "a national epidemic" that kills several thousand people every year is tougher laws with much higher fines and license suspension for a month after the first offense and license revocation after a second infraction.  No excuses, no exclusions.

It's that serious.  Read A Deadly Wandering and you'll understand and I'm sure you'll agree.