"The more things change, the more they stay the same."
I laugh when I think about that line, but then I realize how true it can sometimes be. Take the argument of "social media vs. traditional media." Obviously, I have a vested interest in the success of traditional media. But I also understand the pull and importance of social media and believe it can be used for the power of good.
So as I started writing this post, I had this weird feeling I had written about it before. I went through the entire history of this blog and couldn't find it. Then I remembered that there's a "Notes" function on Facebook. Eureka! Found it. In light of what I've seen and heard following today's tornado warning in the Calgary area, I present to you the unedited post I wrote from February 9th, 2012:
*****
I've been biting my lip on this whole argument for a while now. I've been trying to find a way to "craft" some sort of rant to get a few things off my chest while trying to keep the "emotional" element out of it. I've had a day or two to cool off and now it's time to give you an inside look into the mind of a reporter in what seems to be an ever-changing industry.
Social media is an interesting beast. Outside of radio, where are you going to get information up-to-the-minute? Not the papers. Not the TV (unless you're on an all-news channel). Maybe on radio (I'm proud to be working for a radio station which actually still has newscasts so you do get it there). But if something's happening right now, you'll probably find it on social media. That can be a good thing and a bad thing. And there's two schools of thought I want to hit on when it comes to that last sentence.
Let's start with you, the average everyday Facebook/Twitter user. You LOVE to post things. Especially when something is going on. It's good to be that person trying to help out your community. But how FACTUAL is that information? Did you hear it from a reliable source or is it just something you heard through the grapevine or rumour mill? Because we all know how many ears that gets passed through before it's hit yours.
I look at the grassfires near Lethbridge a few months back as a prime example of this. The city wasn't evacuating anyone from the west side yet you'd never know that by reading some of the tweets sent out. I have no idea how that information came to be, whether it was something made up through imagination or if it was a young firefighter or rookie officer saying something. What I do know is it creates a ton of problems, including hysteria for those on social media sites. How serious should you be taking these claims? How long do you wait before you determine this is a legitimate concern?
The other issue it creates is it forces traditional media outlets into trying to confirm these claims. And, as a reporter, I can say it sometimes feels like you're running around in circles. I've always likened social media to having a call-in radio show, only there's millions of calls you have to sift through. The only trouble is you have to get through a ton of crap to find the gold. Having heard almost every rumour imaginable in the hours after the tragic murder-suicide outside Claresholm, we spent most of our initial news conference with the RCMP asking questions which the officer said had no bearing on the investigation (eg was a house fire connected). I don't blame anyone for that but it makes you question just how much stuff out on the internet is truth and how much isn't.
As for us media types, we're almost caught in a Catch-22. We're told (sometimes repeatedly) that we "need to be first". Consultants come in and say social media is here and we need to embrace it. Be the first to tweet whatever you have because you don't want to risk having "the other guys" beat you to it. Well unfortunately this has left us holding onto our journalistic integrity by the hair of our chinny-chin-chins. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen media people re-tweet wrong information (the Lethbridge-area fires were really bad for that). You hear horror stories of reporters being sent out on wild goose chases about some "situation" someone else in the office saw on Facebook or Twitter, then it turns out to be nothing at all. Yet no one bothers to fact-check and make a quick phone call. They are using these social mediums as "sources" and it's getting some people in major hot water. And yes, it's all to be "first". Look at how many celebrities have "died" on social media, then it spreads to traditional media, only to have the celeb call someone to say "hey wait a second". I'll tell you right now (and most of you who actually take the time to read this probably already know), I don't care if I'm first. Yeah, it's cool to have a possible scoop. But I'd rather be second by a minute and accurate ALL the time than be first by a minute and accurate MOST of the time. I am super-competitive, but I like my integrity and the trust that people put in me to have the story right the first time.
I don't have any fancy-dancy anecdotes that will make people proclaim "Eureka!" while altering their attitudes towards social media. Just hopes and dreams that one day traditional media can fully grasp the power that social media has and use it to their advantage while giving the average everyday person an absolute surefire place to go to get accurate, relevant information, whether its on-air or online. Hopes and dreams that the average everyday person will stop taking rumours and innuendo as being "truth" and, in turn, will come back to the traditional media outlets to get the real truth. Because, as it stands right now, between journalists, bloggers and the gossipers, the line still seems a little blurred to me.
*****
More than three years later, all I can say is "ditto."
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Monday, July 13, 2015
Coming To A Town Near You
Being a small town kid, I'll always have a soft spot for small towns. It also gives me a unique perspective on how the big city handles the small towns.
You see, the only time big city media types invade the small towns, it's for negative news. Disasters and tragedies. Both are obviously unthinkable events. Unexpected. And it creates a problem for everyone involved when the expectation in both camps is so vastly different.
From the small town perspective, you're simply not used to having 15 media outlets (or more) converge on your community. At most, you might have a weekly newspaper, maybe a regional radio station that stops by once in a while. But that's it. So you're completely unprepared for what's about to come. About five years, I attended an emergency preparedness conference in Banff, where the vast majority of municipalities I spoke with said their plans don't/didn't include how to handle media. Standing in front of one microphone was nerve-wracking enough, let alone 15 with reporters yelling questions.
From the media perspective, you're used to getting the big city response. The cities have multiple spokespeople/communications people, whose sole job is to organize the message being sent out and to get back to us media types. The cities develop strategies on communications for everything from a new park opening to an emergency. The towns, well, don't. The speakers are well-coached and are used to handling the pressure cooker of a scrum. It's a totally different world between the two.
So I tend to give smaller communities a little more leeway in terms of answering interview requests when disasters or tragedies strike. It's not a ton of leeway. But it's enough to make sure to say to them "we're looking to help you pass along as much information as possible to our listeners/viewers/readers, who also happen to live in your community." The relationship needs to be perceived as being mutual. It's an idea that's sometimes foreign to small town spokespeople, who are already resentful that the only time media types are talking to them is in the most inconvenient time.
I've covered so many of these situations. High River, Claresholm, Sparwood, Innisfail, Brooks. Even the bigger small cities like Lethbridge, Medicine Hat and Red Deer. For the most part, I don't believe that they're trying to dodge questions. They're simply not as prepared to deal with the barrage like Calgary and Edmonton are.
That being said, I will 100% advocate for all communities to be prepared. The person in charge of communications, whether it be internal, external, or both, needs to realize that the media is going to go looking for information to pass along to listeners/viewers/readers, especially when natural disasters hit. So to help your own image (whether it be on the "open and transparent front" or on the "let's quell any rumours that might be out there), the only option you have is to plan for the media to arrive. Plan regular updates. Communicate your plans.
Media can and will be the conduit from you to your residents, if you utilize it correctly.
You see, the only time big city media types invade the small towns, it's for negative news. Disasters and tragedies. Both are obviously unthinkable events. Unexpected. And it creates a problem for everyone involved when the expectation in both camps is so vastly different.
From the small town perspective, you're simply not used to having 15 media outlets (or more) converge on your community. At most, you might have a weekly newspaper, maybe a regional radio station that stops by once in a while. But that's it. So you're completely unprepared for what's about to come. About five years, I attended an emergency preparedness conference in Banff, where the vast majority of municipalities I spoke with said their plans don't/didn't include how to handle media. Standing in front of one microphone was nerve-wracking enough, let alone 15 with reporters yelling questions.
From the media perspective, you're used to getting the big city response. The cities have multiple spokespeople/communications people, whose sole job is to organize the message being sent out and to get back to us media types. The cities develop strategies on communications for everything from a new park opening to an emergency. The towns, well, don't. The speakers are well-coached and are used to handling the pressure cooker of a scrum. It's a totally different world between the two.
So I tend to give smaller communities a little more leeway in terms of answering interview requests when disasters or tragedies strike. It's not a ton of leeway. But it's enough to make sure to say to them "we're looking to help you pass along as much information as possible to our listeners/viewers/readers, who also happen to live in your community." The relationship needs to be perceived as being mutual. It's an idea that's sometimes foreign to small town spokespeople, who are already resentful that the only time media types are talking to them is in the most inconvenient time.
I've covered so many of these situations. High River, Claresholm, Sparwood, Innisfail, Brooks. Even the bigger small cities like Lethbridge, Medicine Hat and Red Deer. For the most part, I don't believe that they're trying to dodge questions. They're simply not as prepared to deal with the barrage like Calgary and Edmonton are.
That being said, I will 100% advocate for all communities to be prepared. The person in charge of communications, whether it be internal, external, or both, needs to realize that the media is going to go looking for information to pass along to listeners/viewers/readers, especially when natural disasters hit. So to help your own image (whether it be on the "open and transparent front" or on the "let's quell any rumours that might be out there), the only option you have is to plan for the media to arrive. Plan regular updates. Communicate your plans.
Media can and will be the conduit from you to your residents, if you utilize it correctly.
Monday, July 6, 2015
If I Had $10,000...
I was sitting around one night, looking at the stars, thinking to myself "what would be the best way to promote myself?" Then it hit me! Why don't I get myself a lawnchair and $10,000 worth of helium, build a sign with an image of me on it, then launch myself into the sky! Seems like a pretty solid plan.
Pardon?
What?!?
It's been done already?!?
Dang.
OK, time for me to rant. Admittedly, I struggled with wanting to write this blog, simply because I didn't want to give this guy any more attention than he had already received. But ultimately I find myself writing this (and you find yourself reading this), as maybe I can shed some light on my observations about a story like this.
I feel like I've already gone through three different emotions with this story already:
#1. Anger
I honestly can't believe this was made out to be such a BIG story. It's a guy doing a publicity stunt, so he wants publicity and we're giving it to him. Reporters are tripping over themselves trying to get an interview with him. That's what he WANTS! His story is going to ultimately trump other, more important stories of the day. There are massive wildfires burning out of control in Western Canada, there's quite the economic crisis in Greece which is having an impact across the world, and oil prices have fallen again big-time. But those three stories are going to be buried behind this guy. And there are reporters spending their entire DAY on this. He says he "has no regrets." Of course he doesn't. It's a PUBLICITY STUNT! This is what he wanted.
#2. Baffled
I don't know if baffled is an emotion but I'm going with it. Here's the thing that seems to have been lost in all of this: it's not just his life he's playing with. Imagine if he had flown into the path of an oncoming plane. Or how about his contraption malfunctions and he falls, hitting someone. Or one report I saw alluded to him wanting to get into the Stampede Grounds where the rodeo or chuckwagons were going on. Imagine him landing on the track and causing a massive pileup as horses tried to stop. He's been given a lot of publicity for someone who didn't seem to have public safety at the top of his mind.
#3. Frustration
Here's the kicker: you all LOVE this "story." Judging by the number of shares, likes, retweets and the like, you love every single minute of this. This highlights the ongoing battle that I have in my mind every single day. Do you talk about the stories that everyone is talking about? Or do you try to spend some time to work on stories that will get people talking? Because I've seen it. Important stories that people should be outraged about, or disappointed about, or maybe even impressed by. But they get one Facebook like and a couple of retweets. Then some ridiculous story that has no bearing on anything in the world goes viral. And here's where things get sticky. We're now all in a rat race to make sure we're on top of those viral stories. Because if we're not talking about it, the assumption is that the consumer is going elsewhere to find it. Well hello there, slippery slope! Nice to see you again!
All of this leaves me with one very clear message: if you (or anyone else you know) want to get some free publicity, all you need is a stunt. Don't worry, it'll be all over the news.
Pardon?
What?!?
It's been done already?!?
Dang.
OK, time for me to rant. Admittedly, I struggled with wanting to write this blog, simply because I didn't want to give this guy any more attention than he had already received. But ultimately I find myself writing this (and you find yourself reading this), as maybe I can shed some light on my observations about a story like this.
I feel like I've already gone through three different emotions with this story already:
#1. Anger
I honestly can't believe this was made out to be such a BIG story. It's a guy doing a publicity stunt, so he wants publicity and we're giving it to him. Reporters are tripping over themselves trying to get an interview with him. That's what he WANTS! His story is going to ultimately trump other, more important stories of the day. There are massive wildfires burning out of control in Western Canada, there's quite the economic crisis in Greece which is having an impact across the world, and oil prices have fallen again big-time. But those three stories are going to be buried behind this guy. And there are reporters spending their entire DAY on this. He says he "has no regrets." Of course he doesn't. It's a PUBLICITY STUNT! This is what he wanted.
#2. Baffled
I don't know if baffled is an emotion but I'm going with it. Here's the thing that seems to have been lost in all of this: it's not just his life he's playing with. Imagine if he had flown into the path of an oncoming plane. Or how about his contraption malfunctions and he falls, hitting someone. Or one report I saw alluded to him wanting to get into the Stampede Grounds where the rodeo or chuckwagons were going on. Imagine him landing on the track and causing a massive pileup as horses tried to stop. He's been given a lot of publicity for someone who didn't seem to have public safety at the top of his mind.
#3. Frustration
Here's the kicker: you all LOVE this "story." Judging by the number of shares, likes, retweets and the like, you love every single minute of this. This highlights the ongoing battle that I have in my mind every single day. Do you talk about the stories that everyone is talking about? Or do you try to spend some time to work on stories that will get people talking? Because I've seen it. Important stories that people should be outraged about, or disappointed about, or maybe even impressed by. But they get one Facebook like and a couple of retweets. Then some ridiculous story that has no bearing on anything in the world goes viral. And here's where things get sticky. We're now all in a rat race to make sure we're on top of those viral stories. Because if we're not talking about it, the assumption is that the consumer is going elsewhere to find it. Well hello there, slippery slope! Nice to see you again!
All of this leaves me with one very clear message: if you (or anyone else you know) want to get some free publicity, all you need is a stunt. Don't worry, it'll be all over the news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)