I am a firm believer in reading and absorbing research and surveys done nationally for how old and new media interact. There are lessons to be learned from this national research on how we should interact in our own communities.

The merging of old and new media continues to play out in the world of journalism.  No longer do people just read the New York Times or Wall Street Journal for news, but also a growing number of online entities such as HuffingtonPost, Drudge, TechCruch, GigaOm, and even social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook. In our own communities this could mean the community paper, Twitter, Facebook and micro news websites.

Earlier this year, Pew Research Center issued a report analyzing this trend and examining how blogs and social media agendas relate and differ from traditional press.  The report, New Media, Old Media, takes into consideration a year’s worth of analysis, making it very in-depth.  It answers the various questions that are increasingly becoming difficult to track, such as “What types of news stories do consumers share and discuss the most? What issues do they have less interest in? What is the interplay of the various new media platforms? And how do their agendas compare with that of the mainstream press?”

Some highlights from the report include:

• News today is increasingly a shared, social experience
• In less than one third of the weeks did the blogosphere and traditional press share the same top story
• The stories and issues that gain traction in social media differ substantially from those that lead in the mainstream press, but they also differ greatly between social media platforms
• Of the three social platforms tracked in the survey – blogs, Twitter and YouTube – they only shared the same top story once
• Bloggers gravitated toward stories that elicited emotion, concerned individual or group rights or triggered ideological passion and unlike other forms of media, don’t favor one partisanship
• Traditional media news agendas are more event-driven and institutional
• While most original reporting still comes from traditional journalists, technology makes it increasingly possible for the actions of citizens to influence a story’s total impact
• 44% of online news users get news at least a few times a week through emails, automatic updates or posts from social networking sites
• In 2009, Twitter’s monthly audience increased by 200%

Share on Facebook

As a PR and marketing guy I have over the year been confronted, when a consumer or customer thinks that an injustice has been done to them, spew the old line “I’m going to the papers with this.”

I used to love to hear this sentence spoken when I knew someone with no case, truth or validation to their complaint assumed the “papers” would hold the presses so the masses could hear that we were out of blue logo tees or a donation receipt was not mailed to a donor within moments of the envelope being opened. The chance a journalist or reporter had in receiving a Pulitzer Prize for the irate information usually tended to have them pass on the story.

While this type of unfounded consumer threat used to make me laugh, today that same threat needs to be taken seriously when anyone with a computer can post their grievances on Facebook, Twitter or even set up their own blog to pound on who they conceive to be the perpetrator of the injustice.

We as PIO’s and PAO’s have to grit our teeth and bear it in how we answer members of the community and their perceived grievances. I know it can become tedious and time consuming but our jobs now dictates we cross every T and dot every I or else suffer the consequences of being smeared in the cyber world.

 A case in point was how Alaska Airlines recently handled a flyers complaint and how the world including I found out about every sordid detail. The example does involve though a consumer with what I think was a legitimate complaint.

Alaska Airlines stepped into a PR mess that could’ve been avoided with a “dotting” patience I mentioned.

A few weeks ago, Colleen Roberge, Dan Blais, and their son had to make a last-minute restroom pit stop before boarding their flight. Blais spoke with the airline agent about the situation, but in the time that it took to change a diaper, the airline had given away two of the family’s tickets. And, according to Blais, when he said he wouldn’t board without his family, the agent said she’d give away his ticket too.

Mom and baby were crying, the family’s bags left with the plane, and it cost more than $1,000 to rebook the next day. Now Blais has started a blog called “Alaska Airlines Hates Families.” If that isn’t bad enough, there’s the response from the airline.

The airline’s social media manager Elliott Pesut replied via blog, Business Insider reports: “Reservations are subject to cancellation if customers aren’t ready at the gate within those times because many tasks must be completed before departure…We can’t push the plane back from the gate till everyone is sitting down. And so on.”

The best part is the “And so on.” Way to go Alaska Airlines.

Update: Way to go Alaska Airlines. The family behind “Alaska Airlines Hates Families” now says “Alaska Airlines Doesn’t Hate Families.” Apparently, the family has been reimbursed and the issue resolved.

Share on Facebook

I am currently on the road trip from hell. Close to two weeks being away from home and my safe haven the firehouse. I’m attending to some business currently in Las Vegas and had the opportunity to have dinner with a well know Texas business analyst who is often quoted in the papers and appears occasionally on TV. He asked me as a PR person and fire blogger my take on the difference between a reporter and a blogger. While he is always ready to speak to traditional media to get his expertise on a business issue, financial bloggers worry him because their perceived bias could misinterpret what he is saying.

There continues to be a lot of debate about the difference between independent bloggers who maintain their own blogs and reporters. The Fire PIO is an independent blog so to speak, but as a member of a larger entity, FireEMSblogs.com, and indirectly Fire Rescue Magazine, I feel that I have a journalistic code of ethics that I must follow in my writing.

I, for one, firmly don’t believe that bloggers and reporters are synonymous. Bloggers who write on a specific topic are in many cases biased. Just check the hundreds of independent political blogs out there. By the way reporters are also becoming increasingly biased based on who they work for. Let’s remember that while both FOX News & CNN claim to be unbiased, one needs only to watch a political report for all of 5 minutes to see that they both clearly “skew” the facts to meet their objectives. It is very hard to find totally neutral and unbiased new reporting these days.

Although bloggers seem to be maturing over the last few years and are coming in line with more traditional journalistic standards there is still one big difference. A reporter has to be beholden to his maker (his editor and editorial board) while most independent bloggers are beholden only to their own conscience.

Share on Facebook

I have posted in the past about ambush type journalism and my own scales of justice for dealing with media that does not play nicely. (See Banned for Life) Over the years in both my regular PR jobs and in the fire department, I have encountered journalists who have for a better phrase “flipped the script,” in essence pitching one thing with one side of their face, while actually doing the opposite. Kind of a two faced approach.

By “flip the script,” I mean they sometimes will give you the distinct impression they are writing something that will flatter your department or otherwise serve your interests — when all along they’re planning to sucker punch you using the spiral binding on their reporter’s notebook to hit you from behind.

Is this ethical? Let’s just say I’ve known reporters that I have met over the years who feel bad about doing it, but still do it never the less.

So, as you prepare your Chief for that next big interview with the news media, what are the warning signs that a reporter plans to flip the script on you? Here are eight of them I have accumulated over the years from first hand experience:

1. The journalist is vague about the story angle.

Reporters don’t call you unless they have a pretty good idea what they’re going to write about. For example, they might want to profile your department’s commitment to fire prevention visits to schools, or they might want your take on a specific trend or controversy, like your department’s budget in an atmosphere of belt tightening. If you ask them their angle and they mumble something that doesn’t sound like a focused story idea, it might be because their real angle is that they think your department is cheating the taxpayer by spending money frivolously.

2. The journalist has a history of hard-hitting reporting or pointed commentary.

After being contacted by a reporter you don’t know, the first thing you should do is Google them to see what kind of stuff they write. If you go through a half-dozen past stories and find one positive and five public trashings, those probably approximate your odds.

3. The media outlet typically does not have nice things to say about people like you.

Be mindful of the slant of the publication. For example, alternative weeklies traditionally take an anti-mainstream tact. Unless you’re a community activist or organization who is doing something disruptive to the status quo, this kind of outlet may not be for you if a reporter beckons.

4. A competing media outlet has just said something nice about you.

Reporters hate getting beat on a story. They also hate doing the same story someone else just did. So if you’ve been the subject of some laudatory coverage, you’re eventually going to meet up with a reporter who wants to knock you off your high horse. Be prepared.

5. The journalist is reluctant to tell you who else has been interviewed for the story.

You can learn a lot by asking a reporter who else he or she has interviewed for the story. For example, if the reporter has prepared for the upcoming meeting with your Chief by talking to a community activist who finds no good in the way your department appropriates funds, you might be in for a bumpy ride. If a reporter hems and haws when you ask the question, that might be all the answer you need.

6. The journalist is uncomfortable when asked his or her point of view.

It’s often useful to ask the reporter his or her point of view on a controversial issue. Many reporters share their perspectives freely when their opinions are neutral or in alignment with yours. When they think you’re full of it, on the other hand, they tend to ramble on about objectivity and how the “story is about your department, not me.” If they start talking like that, you’re probably burnt toast.

7. The journalist gives nonverbal clues that suggest deception.

The general clues people use to determine if someone is being deceptive are helpful in a face-to-face interview. When reporters are distant, make little eye contact, and seem overly protective of what they’ve written in their notebook, you might be in trouble.

8. The journalist makes it apparent that he or she has already done ALL of the reporting for the story — except for talking to your Chief.

You’re dead meat now. The reporter has lined up everything and just wants to fire away at you — “I’ve discovered you have overspent on your new Engine and did not do the proper bidding process, so what’s your response?  Duck and cover. A PIO nightmare I hope none of us every find ourselves mixed up in.

Even if you strongly suspect a journalist is planning to flip the script on you, that doesn’t mean you should respond with a “no comment.” In fact, you still need to provide the reporter with information and, in many cases, you should go ahead with the interview.

But you’d better go into it ready — focused for battle, talking points down cold, with both guns blazing. And recording the conversation with the reporter’s knowledge is not a bad idea.

Share on Facebook

Nothing beats coming into work and immediately hearing “I just read the paper, it looks like you guys are in trouble again.” When I inquired into who and what was in trouble I was told that a story was in Newsday, our Long Island newspaper about the latest loser who riffled through fire department funds, betraying both his fellow brothers and sisters and the public at large.

The problem with the in your face guy who confronted me  with the story before I set a foot in the door, is that he assumes all firefighters are the same and all departments are created equal. It didn’t matter to him that the ex firefighter and department in question are about 40 miles from here. For whatever reason, ours is a trade that suffers from collective guilt.

The skuzz ball in question is one George William Gray, 68, a past member of the Glen Cove Fire Department, who is accused to have stolen nearly $200,000 from the department over a six year period. The indictment charges Gray with writing 300 checks to cash and forging the signature of the department’s treasurer, all while he served as Chair of the fund drive. This moron did not use the money to help his sick wife receive treatment or to build water wells in Africa, but to buy electric train equipment and expensive cigars. Because this creep has the best train layout this side of the Mississippi all 20,000 volunteer firefighters in Nassau and Suffolk Counties have to suffer collective punishment because in the eyes of many, all of us unfortunately are lumped in one collective group.

It is vital that we, as fire PIO’s, have ready at our finger tips the rules of governance and transparency that our departments abide by. The checks and balances that my department has in place would never allow this kind of situation to rear its ugly head.

The press unfortunately loves this kind of stuff and it is our responsibility to sit with our Chiefs, trustees, board members and Commissioners to fully understand the dynamics of how the administrative and financial operations of our departments function. This is vital the next time some would be railroad tycoon and cigar chomper decides to pull a stunt that as mentioned unfortunately is seen by many as implicating us all.

Share on Facebook

A new form of reporting local news is taking root across America. It’s called hyperlocal and is much more nimble and reactive then traditional community news sources.

Next month I am inviting the editors of Smithtown Patch to the firehouse for a media open house. I hold these events several times a year in which I invite one media outlet at a time to come and tour our department and get to know a little better about who we are and how we serve the community. This is the first time I am inviting what at this point can be called a non traditional or newly emerging form of media.

In Smithtown we currently have three hyperlocal web sources, Smithtown Patch, Smithtown Radio and Smithtown Matters. All three have been contacting me when news breaks and posting the stories almost as fast as I get them up on the web. Hyperlocal seems to be able to capture community news in almost real-time.

The biggest of these hyperlocal operations is Patch. The parent of Patch is AOL. The home page is constantly being updated with breaking news, restaurant reviews, community profiles etc. Here’s a look at the Smithtown Patch .

Currently there are Patch editions in communities in 11 states.

Although hits are currently sparse, I see hyperlocal news sources as a growing form of local information gathering.

It appears that many hard copy local papers that print on a weekly basis will have to come up to speed and create their own hyperlocal websites. Many community papers have engaged reader of their weeklies with fresher information via the web, but a large majority of these publications have, for what ever reason, shied away from providing daily web based news, and only provide it once a week in newstand and delivery print editions.

This may  prove to be a bad strategy, as hyperlocal sites such as Patch start grabbing both readership and local advertising revenue.

Share on Facebook

I was outraged that 9/11 turned into a three ring circus of media, yes media flamed protests. A day that will never be made into a National Holiday, least the significance be diminished by future generations, who will take it as a shopping day orgy with no understanding of its implication, was tainted by a media that puts every rumor, innuendo and kook generated story on the same plain.

The so called “main stream media” has a responsibility to properly vet stories and put them in scale of importance. The main stream is supposedly made up of the best and brightest of journalists. They look with distaste at bloggers and web based writers as if they are sitting in filthy basements in their underwear churning out manifestos of half truths. Yet, when a small time preacher, Pastor Terry Jones, with an infinitesimal congregation in Florida determines that a Burn the Koran promotion at his Dove World Outreach Center Church will encourage bake sale profits, the MSM reacts as if his edict was a Papal encyclical.

We all have small fringe churches in our neighborhoods. Many have off center interpretations of the bible. Due to these skewed views their memberships never hit the century mark.

Why this fringe Pastor was given the platform he was, and still has, is a direct indictment of the MSM making a big something out of relatively little.

While initial reports of the Pastor’s stunt were generated by alternative new sources, they just reported the facts. It was your responsibility main stream media to put things in context.

Is it the alternative electronic news or you who are actually sitting in their basements typing in your underwear?

Share on Facebook

As anyone knows who reads my posts on a regular basis, I’m not a big fan of speaking to the media “off the record.” I’ve been burned a number of times over the years trying to be a nice guy, covertly helping a journalist get what I feel is the essence of a story without my direct quotes.

I usually peruse the Atlantic website to see there political take on things, but yesterday came across an interesting article looking into the world of “off the record” comments.

The article was written by Chuck Todd, the White House correspondent for NBC news and Albert Oetgen, the Managing Editor for the NBC News Washington bureau.

I found the most interesting part of the story to be the Pete Williams glossary of terms that unofficially govern the flow of information to the media in Washington.

I respect Williams. He has seen it on both ends working for the White House and currently the Justice Department and Supreme Court correspondent for NBC.

Williams “Santa analogy is interesting and a guide for us PIO’s into this fine line world -

• “There is ‘On The Record.’ Quoting verbatim with attribution: ‘Santa Claus is a fraud,’ said Pete Williams.”
• “There is ‘On Background.’ You can use the information without attribution, or with generic attribution: ‘Santa Claus is a fraud,’ said a network correspondent.”
• “There is ‘Off The Record.’ You know it, you can shop it around, act on it, but you can’t report it, until you get it somewhere else.”
• “Where the thing begins to get hazy is around the idea of Deep Background, the shadowy territory between On Background and Off The Record: ‘NBC News has learned that some network correspondents think Santa Claus is a fraud.’”

Share on Facebook

One strange phenomenon in public relations where even the most ethical and transparent practitioner is caught fudging the truth on occasion come when it’s time to give a crowd or attendance count. For some reason, when it comes to estimating the size of the crowd, at say our annual fire prevention days, we tend to become world renowned optimists.

A few years back when my Department celebrated its 100^th Anniversary I had my stats together – 23 Departments marched in our parade, 3,580 hotdogs were served etc., but when it came to estimating the size of the crowd on our parade route, I remember I leaned towards what I think I saw as the total. Wanting the event to be a success, and it was, I probably put on the rose colored glasses in giving the crowd total to the press which was purely speculative since no one was walking around with counters in their hands.

Crowd size is an argument that flares in Washington DC constantly.  I read a story in the Yahoo blog The Upshot about the crowd at last weekend’s Glenn Beck rally that was right on. 

The argument is a function of spin.  Supporters want the crowd to be larger.  Opponents want it to be smaller. Both sides guess because neither side has a quick way to determine how many people were actually present.  There is a way of estimating but it takes days and tedious work.  No one wants to wait for that.  Rather, they want to trumpet their points of view to the media right away.  It would be good if the media just dropped crowd-size estimates completely from their stories, but there is little hope of that happening.  So, supporters and opponents continue to wrangle over a silly argument.  PR practitioners ought to know better.

Share on Facebook

Yesterday afternoon my department was toned out for a mutual aid on a working fire in a neighboring town. We sent a Chief and an Engine. I followed the transmissions on my scanner and it appeared our work was limited. The scene of the fire was right near a notorious, long shuttered psychiatric hospital. A number of plans are on the table of how to eventually utilize the land the facility is standing on. Everything from parks to a planned community is on the table.

Due to the interest in the site, I figured the media would be all over this one. Little did I know that the media would be all over me.

During the alarm I received numerous calls from TV stations, print and web media asking about the incident. When I told these folks that the fire was not in our district and that we sent an Engine and Chief as a mutual aid and did not have any further details, many wanted to know who to contact from the other two departments on scene. It appears the press called the primary department and got no answer and then called the other mutual aid department and ditto.

It is unfortunate that most departments do not place importance on having a working PIO. A PIO is not just in business to churn out releases and speak at schools. On any incident command flow chart the PIO is an integral part of the command.

It appears yesterday that the IC chain was broken because the primary department at the scene did not have a PIO there or appoint a representative during the fire.

Share on Facebook