REICH COMMUNICATIONS

Who do you trust?

 

Despite the endless and increasingly desperate taunts by the president about fake news, network TV remains the most trusted source for political and major breaking news, according to a new study by the Video Advertising Bureau, reported by MediaPost.

Regardless of political affiliation, more than two-thirds of Americans surveyed said television is their primary and most-trusted source of information.

Newspapers appear to be the second-most popular source of information, slightly ahead of social media for most demographics except "blue collar," where social media takes a slight lead.

Social media continues to be a leading source of 'fake news,' fueled by political entities (Democrats and Republicans alike) and, as we now know, foreign powers like Russia who have been using misinformation online to fuel discord here and even impact our elections.  While the president constantly rails against the legitimate media, he has done absolutely nothing to have our government try to deal with that misinformation -- propaganda -- coming from our enemies via social media. 

That propaganda, and those putting it out there, are the "enemy of the people," not our media.

Social Media: A Love/Hate Relationship with Journalists

 

Journalists these days seem to have a love/hate relationship with social media, according to a survey of journalists by ad agency giant Ogilvy.

Increasingly, journalists rely on social media to spot trends, track public attitudes and source information and background.  But they also acknowledge the big challenge that comes along with social media -- the accuracy and credibility of what they find online.

The journalists surveyed -- some 255 of them -- cite Facebook as the leading news gatekeeper.  At 39 percent, Facebook edges out "traditional" media sources, which they scored at 32 percent.  Other digital platforms scored much lower. Google was cited by 15 percent and Twitter by 4 percent.

Journalists also cited social media as the primary cause of the rise of "fake news."  Other reasons given included increasingly polarizing media coverage and what they called "confirmation bias," where readers pick and recirculate stories that tend to echo or support their personal bias or political leanings.  It's also been called the "echo chamber effect."

The challenge that most of the journalists saw as impacting their work is the need to do comprehensive fact-checking, rely only on credible sources and maintain transparency in the reporting process.  These steps, they believe, will be the best way to fight the continuing charges of "fake news." 

They also are basic tenets of good journalism.

 

 

Differentiating "Real" from "Fake"

 

The phrase of the year for 2016 - 2017 will have to be "Fake News."

Millions of Americans were bamboozled by fake news involving the presidential candidates during the election, much of it, we are now learning, coming from a meddlesome Russia, with others coming from hacking entrepreneurs in eastern Europe looking to cash in on clickbait headlines and phony stories.

Some fake news came from talk radio and cable channels.  And some came from party operatives and PACs on both sides.

Some of the fake information was easy to discern as false.  But much has been presented in fairly convincing ways that have fooled many of us. 

Another part of the problem comes from sensational or erroneous headlines.  We are bombarded constantly with information from every angle -- in legitimate media and now also on social media, often forwarded or shared by people we know, even if only online.  With so much coming at us, it's easy to just glance at a headline or maybe the first line of a story and then stop. 

But the impression may be made.  And therein lies the problem.  How do we tell the difference between what's real and what's not?

I have my own ways of truing to tell the difference.  I trust legitimate media.  Even with those media that I trust, I check to see if it's hard news or opinion.  I'm cautious about what I believe when it's been shared.  Articles can be altered or totally made up when shared online.  If I see something that looks like it's from a PAC-funded source -- you get to recognize them after a while -- I usually just ignore it altogether.  That goes for things from Democratic-slanted sites as well... and I'm a Democrat.  I want information that's truthful, not simply slanted the way I might think.

I'm pleased to see a major project that's being launched to increase trust in real journalism and help educate people to understand how to recognize real and fake news.  It's called the News Integrity Initiative, administered by the CUNY (City University of New York) Graduate School of Journalism. 

Thanks to the support of some major businesses and non-partisan organizations like Facebook, AppNexus, Mozilla, the Ford Foundation, the Craig Newmark (Craigslist) Philanthropic Fund and others, the News Integrity Initiative will open its doors with $14 million working capital, to start the process of educating people about what real journalism is and how it works to strive for the unbiased truth.  

I'm sure we'll be hearing more about it.  I am so glad to see something like this now.  It is needed so much.

 

 

Just in... 4/6/17  Check this out.  The founder of eBay is giving $100 million for investigative journalism and to help fight fake news.   From Adweek, read it here. 

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?