Or why Dick Brown probably helped sink Steve Beshear’s approval rating.
We mentioned yesterday that Dick Brown ranted and raved at a boring forum about how awful bloggers are.
But here’s a communications professional’s take on the whole ordeal:
There are some finer points of his I don’t agree with like his opinion that bloggers should report the story fairly and leave the opinion to the commentors. A statement like this just shows that Brown discounts the fact that bloggers, and journalists, are human beings with opinions. The Internet gives us a place to post them. Our country gives us the right to do so. If Brown’s version of what a blog is were true – blogger reports balanced and fair and only commentors offer reaction and opinion, as my buddy @cheapsuits said on Twitter, “Then blogs would be boring.”
He reported the Kentucky Governor’s office doesn’t respond to comments on blogs, unless they’re made by the blogger him or herself and that they took blogs off their main media list because they didn’t respect old school media embargoes.
He also lamented the fact the news media now blogs and pointed to several journalists, paid to be fair and balanced, who blog and express their opinions. To someone from the old school line of thinking where Walter Conkrite covered the news and Andy Rooney commented on it and never the twain shall meet, that’s a fair assessment. However, all of Brown’s points lead to one over-arching theme that separates old communications thinking from new, past ways of conducting business to modern and divides those who don’t “get it” from those who do.
Click here to read the rest.
Jason Falls, for full disclosure, is paid by a PR firm to develop social media, but his analysis is still spot-on. And Dick Brown would be wise to listen.
On the flip side of things, Adam Edelen has worked hard to develop a relationship with all bloggers, journalists and reporters. And he’s somebody who lives in the reality-based community who understands the importance of the service people like us provide.
14 responses so far ↓
1 Steve // Aug 15, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Dick Brown seems to suggest that we should return to 1950s-style “journalism by stenography” wherein the folks who actually covered the news were afraid to opine on or interpret what they witnessed.
Joe McCarthy loved — and thrived on — the old system.
It wasn’t until a principled titan named Ed Murrow stuck his neck out to challenge the status quo that McCarthy’s reign of terror ended and he self-destructed.
It wasn’t until another hero, Walter Cronkite, opined against the atrocities and hypocrisies of the Vietnam War that an outraged nation rallied to cease that misguided madness.
Both of those CBS icons stepped beyond the traditional role of journalists to change history. Their trailblazing bravery didn’t diminish their credibility; it enhanced it. Both consistently were ranked among the most trusted persons in America.
WHAS-TV’s Mark Hebert is probably the most trusted local TV reporter — and deservedly so. He’s trustworthy, in part, because he doesn’t play favorites. Through the decades, he’s proven himself to be an equal-opportunity, non-partisan butt-kicker.
As a blogger and commentator, he doesn’t pull punches and he doesn’t mince words. We always know where he’s coming from. In my book, that makes him more credible than anyone who pretends to be “objective.”
Objectivity is, and always has been, a journalistic myth because, as Jason Falls noted, we’re all human and we all have opinions. Inevitably, those opinions affect our reportage.
So why not be honest and forthcoming about them instead of fugitives from the Fifities?
Thanks to bloggers, the marketplace of opinion is more robust and unfettered than ever. And that’s a good thing for democracy. The truth and the lies have never been more accessible. Their constant collision enlightens us.
Dick Brown seemingly wants to regulate (or at least reduce) this marketplace. It’s easy to repudiate irresponsible bloggers, but most of us would place more trust in a blogger who honestly and fully discloses his biases and/or conflicts than a high-paid, message-managing spinmeister.
Most PR professionals appreciate feedback (good or bad) from their audiences.
The remedy to unfavorable reviews isn’t to muzzle the messengers; it’s to modify the message and skip the bullshit.
2 John Cheves // Aug 15, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Some public relations folks in government are frustrated by we “mainstream media” types who blog throughout the day, because they can’t delay calling us back until 6 p.m. (and then, with a half-responsive answer) like they used to.
We’ll call their offices in the morning to get their responses for a story. By early afternoon, if they haven’t called back — as they often haven’t — we’ll post the news item on a blog and say “So-and-so hasn’t responded to calls for comment yet.”
Suddenly they find the time to call! And loudly complain. It makes them livid that deadlines now occur all the time. Welcome to the 21st century.
This hasn’t posed a problem for the good P.R. folks in government — and they exist, bless their hearts — who always called back quickly and made an effort to be helpful.
3 jake // Aug 15, 2008 at 6:30 pm
John–
Thanks for chiming in on that note.
Just goes to show that even legitimate journalists encounter the same sort of push-back now that your business is flowing at a quicker pace than 20 years ago.
I also believe getting people to comment as things are happening is the best approach to journalism. Government agencies, candidates, companies, Joe Schmoes out on the street shouldn’t always be allowed a week to formulate a response to something. Commenting right away is how you get the REAL news out. Fortunately, the Herald-Leader seems to get that, as do other news agencies in the state.
4 Cyberhillbilly // Aug 15, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Jake:
Just some thoughts… I blog so I guess I’m a blogger. Rather than a journalist I consider myself an opinionated observer who sometimes- admittedly not very often- reports on new stories. In some cases and on some issues I also become an activist b/c I have deeply felt views.
Although I want to be fair to people, I don’t consider myself bound by many of the conventions of MSM.
Just a few thoughts on bloggers…
5 Cyberhillbilly // Aug 15, 2008 at 7:47 pm
A final thought… don’t bloggers allow for far more eyes on a given subject? That democracy allows for better opinions. Remember, the MSM didn’t recognize the value of two of the biggest political stories in recent years: Thurmondgate and Monicagate. Both were very important and were missed in significance by the MSM.
6 Jason Falls // Aug 15, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Great discussion here, folks and thanks to Jake for the point, quote, etc. While I agree with the general gist of everyone’s comments, assuredly, I think it would be good of us to occasionally remember that communications of the personal and corporate (and for that matter governmental) kind has changed and adjusting to that change is not overnight. I read a good analogy recently that reminded me that when the automobile was first invented, there were to street signs, stop lights, lines on pavement — or even pavement. Everyone just got along as and with drivers the best the could. Eventually the hazards and craziness dictated there needed to be finer rules to follow to avoid chaos.
While the boundless limits of the web (geography and thus governments don’t matter here) will never truly be able to be defined and bracketed in a driver’s manual or set of laws, it will take some time for people to realize that walking across the street warrants more care or that cantering your horse on the left side of the pathway isn’t a good idea anymore.
Dick Brown is a good communications professional, but he has fallen into the traditional behavior of message control and political maneuvering. Professional communications has become professional manipulation over much of the past 25 years. The social web changes that, but not everyone can be expected to change overnight.
Dick’s message did contain signs that he knows something different has to happen to be able to communicate effectively. He doesn’t know what yet, but I’d bet he will.
I just hope it happens sooner rather than later.
The good news is, he saw my post, responded to it privately and genuinely is interested in a discourse that could prove valuable to state government as a whole. For what it’s worth, I hope I can be a part of helping educate our government officials. But even if I’m not, the fact he’s paying attention is a good sign.
Great discussions. I look forward to reading more.
7 Michelle // Aug 16, 2008 at 9:46 am
While I’m glad Brown responded to you Jason it’s 2 steps forward and one step back that he responded privately instead of commenting on your post where others could see the comment and respond to it.
8 BHG // Aug 16, 2008 at 9:59 am
Well, after reading about Mr. Brown’s comments, I feel it is a shame that one of the good P.R. guys in state government had to get pushed out to make way for Mr. Brown when the Governor’s office didn’t want Mr. Brown anymore. (And before everyone starts yelling about how much they didn’t like Mark York, he was a good P.R. guy — most of your complaints relate to office politics and not his performance as the communications guy).
9 Joe Sonka // Aug 16, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Did someone just type out that the MSM ignored the Lewinsky scandal?!?!?!? What fucking planet did you live on during that time????
Dick Brown has about as much grasp of the internet as Ted Stevens.
10 Republican gadfly // Aug 16, 2008 at 1:59 pm
No, the comment was the MSM had the info on the Lewinsky scandal but didn’t break the story. They overlooked it until it broke elsewhere.
11 Bruce Maples // Aug 16, 2008 at 10:34 pm
As the son of a respected reporter, I’ve watched reporting get worse and worse, and the practice of journalism become increasingly hard to tell from corporate PR.
There is (or should be) a distinct difference between reporting and opinion. As old-fashioned as it may seem, when something is reported as fact, it should be as firmly established as fact as that reporter can make it. That is the work of reporting — not just taking dictation (the “stenography” comment from above), but piecing together the elephant from the blind prophets (to stretch an analogy). Scripps-Howard’s motto used to be “Give the people light and they will find their own way,” and that is still an honorable goal toward which any reporter should strive.
Do not, though, think that because I firmly believe in the separation of opinion and reporting, that I am against blogging and the various forms of new media — far from it. I blog myself, on both my own site and on numerous others, including the Great Orange Satan itself. (Daily Kos, for the uninitiated.) Even in blogging, though, there should still be standards.
If you report something as fact, even on a blog, it should be something you have checked and sourced correctly. Blog diaries on dKos that do not honor this concept tend to get called out rather quickly. If a blogger expects to get press credentials to an event, and to be treated like a reporter, then when you are reporting facts hold yourself to the once-high standards of the old-line reporters: two sources before you report something as true.
Why, then, mix opinion with fact at all? Because that is part of the attraction, the value, of today’s best bloggers. You get solid information mixed with well-written opinion. For an example, go read Glenn Greenwald’s series on the anthrax investigation at Salon.
I know this is already too long, so I’ll finish by saying that any government official who doesn’t take bloggers seriously has his or her head in the sand. And any blogger who doesn’t take the power and responsibility of the written word seriously is unworthy of the word “journalist.”
12 jake // Aug 16, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Those who write for this website wouldn’t necessarily consider themselves journalists in any sense of the word. We mix facts and opinions because we want to. And because it works, as Bruce mentioned above. It’s always clear when we’re offering an opinion– at least here.
But it should go without saying that not all stories are opinionated and not everything requires opinion.
We also shouldn’t lose sight that newspapers and television stations do, indeed, have opinionated editorial voices. Many stories don’t hit the presses because editors deem them unworthy. And there exist editorial boards and such to provide huge doses of opinion on a regular basis. So what we’re doing in the blogosphere isn’t much different when you think about it.
We just don’t have billions of dollars, aren’t going the way of the dodo bird and aren’t bought & paid for.
13 John Cheves // Aug 17, 2008 at 12:18 am
Jake wrote: “We also shouldn’t lose sight that newspapers and television stations do, indeed, have opinionated editorial voices. Many stories don’t hit the presses because editors deem them unworthy.”
It’s true that newspapers have editorial voices that offer opinions. But in my experience during 15 years reporting for daily newspapers, there is a wall between the editorial page staff and the news staff, as there should be.
I reported for a newspaper in Savannah, Ga., with a conservative editorial page prior to coming to the Lexington newspaper, which has a liberal editorial page. No editor at either paper told me what to write or what not to write based on the editorial page’s politics. (For that matter, no editor has prevented me from reporting critical stories about our major advertisers, either.) None of my stories have been spiked because they interfered with some alleged editorial agenda. Just in the political arena, I’ve written plenty of critical stories about people who our editorials had endorsed for office.
Reporters work in separate parts of the building from editorial writers and we answer to different people. Consequently, we seldom know what will appear on the editorial page until we pick up our copy of the morning paper, and frankly, we seldom give it much thought afterward.
14 jake // Aug 17, 2008 at 12:20 am
John– You’ve been lucky to work at good papers like the H-L.
I know reporters at the C-J who can’t say the same as you.
Leave a Comment