Category: Media Ethics

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Media Ethics, Shel's Personal Life, Uncategorized

An article in today’s SpeakerNet News (scroll down to “Do book testimonials work? — Ian Percy”) posits that many, if not most, book blurbs are signed by people who’ve never examined the book.

I surely hope Mr. Percy is wrong! Certainly, when I’m asked for a book blurb I spend some serious time with the book and read at last several sections as well as the Table of Contents, index, etc. I will confess–I don’t generally read the whole thing–but I read enough of it that I can comment accurately. I find it scandalous that some people apparently consent to blurb a book without looking at it at all.

Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to them that ultimately, it’s *their* reputation at stake as well as the author’s. To endorse a book you don’t actually believe in is asking for trouble on both moral and practical grounds.

And when I request a blurb from someone else, I want that person to give me something based in honesty and a true appreciation of the content of the book. The blurbs I get, as a result, have enough substance that they actually do sway a sale. Yes, I believe readers can tell the difference between an honest enthusiastic blurb and a fake. (In fact, I spend some time explaining what makes a good blurb and how to get them, in my newest book Grassroots Marketing for Authors and Publishers).

Blurbs are a crucial tool in creating a marketing buzz, and one that helps equalize the playing field between those books published by big houses and those published by small independents. Let’s not cheapen them, please!

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Events, Media Ethics, Uncategorized

I’m just back from the National Conference on media Reform in Memphis, where much honor was deservedly poured on Martin Luther King, Jr., assassinated in that city just a few blocks from the conference (now the site of the National Civil Rights Museum).

My reports on the 2005 conference in Saint Louis are posted on my Frugal Marketing site; I’ll try to get at least some of my ’07 coverage up this week.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Ethics in Government, Media Ethics, Uncategorized

One of the things investigative journalists learn very quickly is “follow the money.” And that can mean both a direct trail of funding as well as who stands to benefit from policy changes a particular group is recommending.

Given the naked self-interest of certain large corporations in the watering down of the Sarbanes-Oxley–or at least what they perceive to be their self-interest–it’s not a big surprise that the group advocating to weaken that bill turns out to be funded by the very people who see themselves as benefiting by pulling back the watchdogs.

The Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, which argues that U.S. markets are suffering under overzealous enforcement and unwieldy rules, said it received $500,000 in financial support from the C.V. Starr Foundation. The charity has longstanding ties to Maurice R. “Hank” Greenberg, the former American International Group chief who was ousted from his post last year and is contesting civil charges filed by the New York attorney general.

Two committee members, Wilbur L. Ross Jr., a private investor, and Citadel Investment Group manager Kenneth C. Griffin, contributed “a few hundred thousand dollars” more, Ross said in an interview. The panel was formed this year with support from Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., a former chairman of the Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs.

The email version (thanks, Nancy Smith, for sending it) connects a few more dots:

The
report was funded by the Starr Foundation, which is controlled by Former AIG
Insurance chief Maurice Greenberg. Greenberg was forced to resign last year
after then-NY Attorney General Elliot Spitzer revealed major accounting
manipulations and misrepresentations at his insurance company.

The irony is, as I point out repeatedly in my award-winning sixth book, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First, that high standards of ethics are actually good for the business bottom line.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Media Ethics, Uncategorized

Apparently some students got the wording of their two essay questions some days before they were supposed to. However, it was an open exam, with 90 minutes to compelte the test an time during a 36-hour period.

I am both amused and saddened by some of the comments made on Jeff Bercovici’s blog about it.

This unfortunately is the future of journalism, the creme de la creme.

Meanwhile, William Powers takes the media to task for its endless reporting on itself, at the expense perhaps of more urgent news. And also wonders if the ability to comment publicly is such a good thing.

Well, there, I disagree with him. I think the much larger voice of public comment than the few letters that see print is a very positive thing.

Both of these stories courtesy of my occasional look at Romesnko, the journalism blog.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, Media Ethics, Uncategorized

When I saw Robin Williams’ movie yesterday (see my previous blog post), one of the coming attractions was for “Shut Up and Sing,” a movie about the Dixie Chicks and their battle to avoid being completely suppressed after one of them made a public remark opposing the GWB administration. It was a great trailer; Dina and I put that movie on our go-to-see-it list.

Lo and behold, today I stumbled on a story (via Alternet) that NBC has refused to air a promo for the movie because it “disparaged President Bush.” You can find stories here with every point of view from conservative Matt Drudge to various left-wing bloggers.

You can also see the spot–a much-condensed version of the trailer I saw–by clicking here.

Hmmmm. Sounds suspiciously like the old Divine Right of Kings theory and its dictatorial corollary that you weren’t allowed to criticize the royal government without severe consequences, if you ask me.

Earth to NBC: It is NOT the job of the media to sanitize controversy. It is, in fact, the job of the media to investigate the news and report it, even if that means exposing a government buried in corruption, lies, and power grabs. With far too few exceptions (one of whom is NBC’s own Keith Olbermann), the large corporate media have not been holding their end of the bargain. But still, whether or not they act like it, the mainstream media should be (as the Quakers say) “speaking truth to power”–not helping to protect that power from ever hearing criticism.

As it is, it is utterly shameful that the American people have allowed their protests to be marginalized and their picketers herded into enclosures far form the targets. I call that un-American and unpatriotic, and I salute those brave Americans who continue to defend the right of protest. Including the Dixie Chicks.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Media Ethics, Uncategorized

By coincidence, I received two pieces of e-mail today that both deal with the question of how
much disclosure is appropriate when someone takes up a cause and is quietly paid to do it.

First, a ray of hope from the Word of Mouth Marketing Association: a proposed list of 20 questions marketers should ask themselves to determine if their buzz campaign is ethical–and prefaced with these instructions:

  • Ask these questions before launching any word of mouth marketing campaign.
    Get answers from your agencies and vendors, as well as from their subcontractors.
    Think about the risks to your reputation before you cross any ethical lines.

    • Remember: Consumers come first, honesty isn’t optional, and deception is always exposed.

    Just as an example, # 8 of the 20 asks,

    Do we forbid the use of expressly deceptive practices from our employees/advocates, such as impersonating consumers; concealing their true identities; or lying about factors such as age, gender, race, familiarity with or use of product, or other circumstances intended to enhance the credibility of the advocate while deliberately misleading the public?

    This is a draft, and they’re actively soliciting public comment.

    But then the other post was a note from blogger BL Ochman about “flogs”–fake blogs–in support of Wal-Mart, by people who were paid by the retail giant’s PR firm to be in support of Wal-Mart and until recently didn’t disclose this relationship.

    She cites a much more in-depth article about the situation.

    That post says, in part,

    As a result of the new transparency, every entry on the blogs is now credited to one of three contributors: Miranda, Brian or Kate. A click on these single monikers reveals biographies of [the PR firm] Edelman employees Miranda Gill, Brian McNeill and Kate Marshall, whose clients include Working Families for Wal-Mart, the sites say.

    While noting that he was speaking in generalities and not to this specific situation, Dave Balter, president of the Boston word-of-mouth marketing firm BzzAgent, said: “Even if you’re doing the right thing but you know you’re going to deceive people, you have to do everything to make sure it’s completely transparent, and any tactic that crosses that line you’re doing a disservice to the brand [and] the consumer.”

    Now, Edelman has decided, finally, to disclose these relationships. What were they thinking trying to hide them?

    My suggestion to the floggers: go back and read those 20 questions from WOMMA, and try to answer them honestly. Otherwise, people will answer them for you, and it may not be pretty.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Marketing Trends/News, Media Ethics, Uncategorized

    I couldn’t agree more with John Ritskowitz’s blog entry criticizing the marketers of a new anti-wrinkle product that was actually Nestle’s Quik powder–yup, the chocolate breakfast drink of your childhood.

    This was a test by NBC’s Dateline, to see if they could find a marketing firm unscrupulous enough to take on the project despite dubious clinical results. And they did.

    His blog includes a link to the Dateline report, which describes informercial scoundrels as “television terrorists.”

    Masquerading as a representative from “Johnston Products,” a Dateline reporter contacted a marketing firm and told them up front that he didn’t think the product would help many people, and that no clinical trials were run to test its effectiveness.

    And what did the marketing firm think? They thought there wouldn’t be a problem, as all that was needed was “somebody in a white coat” to give the impression that the product had been scientifically tested. That and a few paid testimonials.

    The real shame was that the marketing firm then found a real doctor, a well-credentialed doctor, a hospital’s Chef of Dermatology, in fact (Dr. Margaret Olsen, then of Santa Monica’s St. John’s Hospital), who gave a glowing endorsement without ever examining the product. Yuck!

    Ritskowitz goes on to cite several other products that give marketers a bad name, and were eventually pulled off the market under government pressure.

    I totally agree with is analysis that this deceitful crap makes it much harder for us legitimate marketers. And of course, I agree with his call to sign the Business Ethics Pledge, which I founded (big grin). We currently have signatories from 24 countries, and I’d love you to be the next to sign.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Ethics in Government, Media Ethics, Uncategorized

    The always-fascinating Romensko newsletter on journalism has a run of ethics stories in its September 8 issue, with links to the major media where the stories appear. I confess–I can’t begin to keep up with this very informative newsletter. I read it once in a while, and often quite a bit after publication.

    In this one issue, it reports:
    10 Miami-area journalists take government money to promote an anti-Castro message
    HP has been spying on the phone records of major journos
    An article about the Wall Street Journal’s policy of accepting ads on the front page–and how a recent front page bore both a story on the HP scandal and an ad from HP!

    These are just three of a number of links to related stories in this roundup

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Ethics in Government, Marketing Trends/News, Media Ethics, Uncategorized

    Remember the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle from high school physics? It’s the idea that the act of observing something can alter the organisms or events being observed.

    A fascinating article by Thomas Kostigen on Dow Jones MarketWatch looks at how media coverage changes the behavior of governments and corporations, specifically dealing with ethical concerns. The article cites the work of Luigi Zingales, professor of entrepreneurship and finance at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business–who found that businesses will often improve their behavior when the media spotlight shines on them.

    As an example, when the media jumped on the excessive-compensation reportage regarding the salary of former New York Stock Exchange chairman Richard Grasso, he lost his job.

    However, government is a different matter, at least these days. Kostigan sees the media, in its coverage of both corporate and government issues, as irresponsibly unwilling to go deep, late in its reportage, and too eager to sail in the perceived political wind:

    Too often the media plays patsy and is meek in the face of challenge, as was the case with the reporting on the events leading up to the war in Iraq. Or it trails intrepid government inquisitors such as Elliott Spitzer. Or it gets the story wrong — weapons of mass destruction, President Bush’s National Guard record. Or lies about it — Jayson Blair, Jack Kelley

    On the business front, the media lagged inquiry on just about every corporate scandal in recent memory; its business is to break news, not merely report it.

    As someone who writes regularly about ethics and media, I have to agree with him, at least as far as the mainstream press goes. Most important stories these days are broken by the underground press, or by people like Greg Palast who is an American working for British journalism companies that are less afraid to go after the truth.

    I’m still hoping that the Business Ethics Pledge will help change that unwillingness to question. Questioning–questioning everything, and digging deeper–is what journalism should be about.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Marketing Trends/News, Media Ethics, Uncategorized

    Yeech! I just signed on to approve one comment and found 65 in my box. 63 were spam and two were legit. I marked them all as spam and hopefully won’t ever see another subject line of “buy Valium.” What do these people think they’re going to accomplish by spamming a blog that moderates posts?

    If you suddenly find that I’m no longer accepting comments, it’ll be because I’ll have lost patience with these cretins. I wish I could force them to read the section of my book Grassroots Marketing: Getting Noticed in a Noisy World called “Spam: The Newbies’ Natural Mistake.”

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail