Four years FedEx took over the Kinko’s copy and office services company, the Kinko brand was dropped entirely in 2008; those services are now grouped under FedEx Office.

When Marketing Sherpa interviewed FedEx’s Director of Global Brand Management, Gayle Christensen, she outlined eight steps the company took to smooth the transition in the public eye and retain/acquire market share. (Note: Sherpa’s content goes behind a barrier, for purchase, after a few days. “Norman,” referred to in the quote, is Eric Norman, of the marketing strategy firm Sametz Blackstone Associates,)

What caught my eye was “Step #6. Set up interviews with bloggers”:

High-profile people (e.g., new chief executives) should do interviews with bloggers, trade publications, and other media outlets to address weak speculations and preclude skepticism, says Norman. “You have to engage folks who are writing about you,” he says. “If you are not engaged, you concede the control of the message to them.”

Find out who’s talking about the merger on social media outlets, including Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, or niche online forums and blogs. Search for the merging companies’ names or set up an email alert, such as Google Alerts, for the company and brand names.

Make a point to comment on blogs or social media sites talking about the merger, especially if something is false.

I’m fascinated that setting up interviews with bloggers warrants a main headline, while traditional media is mentioned but glossed over in the paragraph. It shows how far we’ve come that bloggers are considered opinion molders, while traditional journalists are barely noticed. This is a growing trend, I think, and it has many implications for how we (as a society) deliver and digest news.

I’m a big believer in citizen journalism, including the blogosphere (I’ve blogged since 2004, after all), and participate actively in social media.

Still, I question the decision to pretty much ignore the mainstream press. There’s also a place for the trained and skilled journalist, who knows how to ask deep questions, has a really strong BS detector, and understands the importance of telling a story that encompasses multiple points of view. I, for one, am not ready to give that up just yet.

But I also note that for many years, some “mainstream” journalism outlets have had a very clear point of view, and have thrown objectivity out the window. While in recent years we’ve seen this very dramatically with, for instance, the strong right-wing bias of Fox News or the somewhat less strong liberal tilt of NBC, even during the golden news decade of the 1970s, there were news outlets such as New Hampshire’s Manchester Union-Leader that were unabashedly partisan and sharply opinionated.

With huge budget cutbacks, bean counters making policy decisions, and corporate ownership sometimes casting a pall over the selection of stories and the decisions about how much resources to use in pursuing them, the future of professional news gathering looks a bit shaky from here. I hope it pulls out in the clutch. It’s an important perspective, despite its flaws, and we’d be poorer for losing it.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Want to know why right-wing pundits far outnumber those on the left in mainstream US TV? Bloggers Jay Rosen and Glenn Greenwald shared a theory on Bill Moyers Journal: having someone like Amy Goodman of Democracy Now would interfere too much with the construct disseminated by US mainstream media that the US government and major corporations are our benevolent friends, and they don’t want to air views that might help explain why the US has enemies abroad.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter, those preachers of hate, are OK in their view because they are simply putting out a more vitriolic version of the Reaganite “mainstream.” But the soft-spoken, highly articulate and very well informed Goodman (who I consider one of the best interviewers in contemporary journalism) is considered a threat!

Of course, this doesn’t explain how another articulate and well-informed progressive,
Rachel Maddow, gets air. But it says a lot about the nature of today’s corporate media.

In the “know your enemies” department, fans of intelligent TV must read this brief transcript or watch the video. It’s a shocker.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Anita Bruzzese’s post on what bloggers can learn from traditional journalists is must-reading for anyone in the social media space. As someone who has done journalism, PR, and blogging (among other kinds of writing), I agree with at least 90 percent of her column.

I especially liked her section on rewriting:

When I wrote my second book, I spent three months writing it and three months editing it. I put on five different hats when I read the copy: 1) as writer I made sure the copy flowed easily; 2) as a reporter, I made sure the copy included solid facts and sources; 3) as a copyeditor, I made sure I used proper grammar, correct spelling and looked for ways to tighten the copy so that it was concise; 4) as a workplace/career journalist, I made sure I was giving people information they wouldn’t find elsewhere; and 5) as a reader, I made sure that even if I knew nothing about the subject, it was still clear. (By the way, don’t try and put on all these hats at once. You’ll lose focus and get confused.)

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

A wonderfully snarky Op-ed in the New York Times by Timothy Egan, called “Typing Without a Clue“–basically attacking Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin for the book deals they’re expected to ink, and saying writing should be left to the many talented but unappreciated writers out there and not sold off as if it were junk bonds by those in the 14th minute of their 15 minutes of fame.

He has a point, certainly–but I’m actually rather fond of the democratization of writing, music making, movie making, etc. There’s still plenty of third-party validation available for those who want to judge these works by some kind of standard–but there’s also an openness, an ability to disseminate a message, that I could never have dreamed of in 1972 when I published my first articles (in an underground high school newspaper published, oddly enough, by conservatives–they ran my liberal stuff with disclaimers). From these mimeographed samizdats–already more accessible than traditional media–to the disintermediated world of blogs, e-zines, Tweets and, yes, hundreds of thousands of books every year is an amazing leap.

Now all we have to do is find time to read one-millionth of it, ha ha ha.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Lostremote.com has an astounding post: a traditional print journalist ranted that a TV station allowing its viewers to select one story for the nightly newscast was the death of standards. The station, in best-practices Web 2.0 fashion, invited him on the show to debate the issue publicly.

And this is how the journalist responded:

“I’m told that this multiple-choice reporter has called me out with a public invitation, on her blog or her twitter or whatever, to debate her before her ubiquitous Web camera with its on-line audience of literally dozens of voyeurs and three or four lonely, misfit bloggers who spend all their time communicating only with each other. I need not lend my experience and credibility to draw her a crowd.”

Talk about clueless! This kind of arrogance might have worked for The New York Times 100 years ago, but it sure doesn’t work now for an unknown journalist working for a newspaper in Arkansas! What he doesn’t get is that he has no credibility with the audience he’s rejecting (other than he apparently writes a blog on politics)–and that his appearance on the show might have built credibility for his position, and might have gone viral, being seen by tens of thousands.

Now, mind you–I am trained as a traditional print journalist. I have enormous respect for people who follow the old principles and standards–who do research before they write, who understand the importance of objectivity, and who try to tell the important stories that are very hard to find on mainstream broadcast media–and I’m horrified by the decline both in journalistic standards within a story and in the general willingness to go after a tough (and expensive) but important story. That failure in part led us to the Iraq debacle. Journalists absolutely need to ask hard questions, grapple with the answers, and filter the world for their public. In an era where we all have far too much information and limited ability to process it, we still need traditional journalists as intermediaries. Citizen journalism is vital, but it’s not the whole thing. Professional journalism is crucial, still.

But I think you can have both journalistic standards and an openness to listening to your readers/listeners/viewers. You can have deep investigative journalism and a viewpoint, even in nonprint media–look at the amazing radio/TV show, Democracy Now, if you want an example. And you can have dialog without threatening your position. I think this journo was extremely short-sighted.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

The post directly above this one, about the death of traditional journalism, has a very interesting provenance. I thought I’d share it with you and provide a look into the mindset of one blogger choosing one story–because as someone who was raised on newspapers, I’ve obviously come far in my information patterns.

PR guru Peter Shankman started a service less than a year ago called Help A Reporter Out; it matches journalists seeking sources with over 40,000 readers seeking news coverage. The venture is free, and advertising-supported. It started as a Facebook group, an I’m proud to say that I was the sixth member.

Today, Peter ran this ad:

This HARO: Cinterim. Cinterim is technology marketing like you
never seen it before, time-sliced marketing: only what you need,
when you need it. They’ve termed it Marketing as a Service: From
Chief Marketing Officers and market-driven business strategy to
complete outsourced marketing services. But they don’t have any
clients or accounts, rather, they serve as a partner to every
company they work with, whether helping a start-up to focus or
turning a later stage or public company’s strategies and execution.
Cinterim is fully invested in each partner’s short- and long-term
success. Make Cinterim your secret weapon. Find them at
www.cinterim.com. And be sure to check out co-founders Lisa Arthur
and Michael Bloom’s hard hitting blog, www.fearofmarketing.com , a
prelude to their book-in-progress, Fear of Marketing, Why the
companies that connect people are disconnected.

Now, I’m not someone who clicks on ads a lot, but I do read Peter’s sponsorship notices, and have followed several of them. I went to the blog. And found this very intelligent and thoughtful article about GM’s troubles (I’ll forgive the sloppy proofreading–lord knows, I’ve certainly been guilty of that!). I even put in a comment, about market share not necessarily being what it’s cracked up to be.

And then I glanced at the blogroll, which only had four entries. I saw three blogs I knew and respected, and this intriguing-sounding one called Lost Remote. So I clicked over and found the story I blogged about.

In fact, I sent my assistant a note asking her to add both Fear of Marketing and Lost Remote to both my own blogroll and my personal blog-reading widget that notifies me of new posts.

Of course, the problem with this kind of journo-voyeuristic ADD, which I get a lot, is that my goal for the last hour was to lower my inbox from 997 to 950.I got it all the way to 996. Yeah, my inbox is so crowded because I’ll get a mailing from Huffington Post or Marketing Sherpa or dozens of others, and I start following a lot of the links, and then at some point I have to do paying work. Oh well, next time!

And if you haven’t read my post on the death of journalism, please scroll up. It’ll be right on top of this one.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Wow! Mashable reports that the Pulitzer Prize people have opened up the award to online journalists without a print publication, if they meet certain criteria. That means bloggers, e-zine/webzine publishers and perhaps others are seen as legitimate journalists.

As a blogger, publisher of four e-zines, and publisher of five webzines, I welcome this.

And perhaps it’s not surprising that I heard this news on a social media site: Twitter.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

How come we’re not hearing about this in the mainstream press? An on-the-scene blogger (and an articulate one who obviously has some journalism training) called it “the biggest political rally ever, in the history of the state.” She’s got photos and videos on the link, too (as well as over 1000 comments, so give it some time to load)

Yet, all three pages of unduplicated results of a Google for “AK Women Reject Palin” (the name of the rally) brought up 24 blogs and one story–it’s unclear whether it’s a staff piece or a hosted blog–at washingtonpost.com. And in the Post story, I learned the delicious irony that the anti-Palin rally was held in front of the public library. Nice!

By contrast, the first page of a search for “Welcome Home” “Sarah Palin ” brings up a different, cheerleader story in the Washington Post, as well as a mildly critical story in the Boston Globe, and coverage in the L.A. Times and Miami Herald. In all, 59,200 results versus 113 for coverage of the protest.

Of course, in sparsely populated Alaska, whose entire population is about equal to Boston’s, that only took 1400 people. Still, it dwarfed the 1000-attendee pro-Palin “welcome home” rally held the same day.

And I find it hard to believe that such an important event could be completely ignored by the mainstream media. Yes, we have free speech in this country (if you don’t get too close to convention halls/corporate events and your skin is the proper color, and you’re not identified as Muslim)–but the media censors the message.

Earth to mainstream media: stop feeding us “Soma” (to use Aldus Huxley’s term) and start reporting the news!

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

I am absolutely outraged! the Republican National Convention is turning into a replay of the Chicago Democratic Convention of 1968, where cops went crazy violent against activists, who were hauled into court.

Enough is enough!

The first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to peaceful protest, as well as the right to freedom of the press. Here is the full text. with the relevant parts in bold:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

.

At the RNC this weekend, legitimate journalists, credentials around their necks, were thrown roughly to the ground, handcuffed, assaulted, and arrested by police who violated all sorts of protocols. Earlier in the week, the police engaged in pre-emptive raids against citizen-journalists who have been known to record police brutality incidents.

You can read, watch, or listen to the entire account by clicking here. But I want to share a few of the most outrageous bits.

NICOLE SALAZAR: Cars were behind me. We were in a parking lot. And, you know, I was telling them that “I’m press. I’m press. Please, you know, don’t—you know, let me pass.” But I couldn’t turn around. And I tried to move in between the—between two cars, and instead of, you know, letting me pass and following the crowd, they instead came right after me and slammed me into the car, at which point I think my camera came back and hit me in the face. And two cops were also behind me, and they pushed me through that row of cars into the next area of the parking lot and slammed me to the ground and said, “Get your face on the ground! Get your face on the ground!” And I was, you know, at that point—

AMY GOODMAN: So you were on your stomach, on your face, on the ground.

NICOLE SALAZAR: I was on my stomach on the ground. And one of the officers, I think he was trying to grab me. He was trying to drag me. He was grabbing my leg. And another officer put his boot on my back and was pressing me to the ground.

AMY GOODMAN: Had they handcuffed you by now?

NICOLE SALAZAR: Yes, they had put me in those plastic cuffs, and my hands were behind my back. And my camera was, you know, two feet away from my face, lying on the ground. And I think shortly thereafter one officer came over and picked up the camera and took out the battery. And at that point I was worried that they were going to take my tape, but I don’t think—I mean, they didn’t, because now we have the tape, but he did take the battery out, I guess so the camera wouldn’t be recording.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, I made it to the police line, where the police in riot gear were lined up. I asked to speak to a commanding officer. They immediately grabbed me. I said, “Sir, I just want to speak to a commanding officer. My reporters are inside.” They’ve got their ID. I mean, we’ve done this in New York, as well, when there is confusion about a reporter. They immediately grabbed me, handcuffed me—and as you haven’t quite talked about, those plastic handcuffs cut right into your wrist, and they make those tight—pushed me to the ground.

AMY GOODMAN: As I came in and I was speaking to the corrections officers, who did identify themselves—I kept asking every officer to identify themselves—a St. Paul cop behind them kept screaming, “Shut up! You, shut up!” And I asked—I said, “I want to know what your name is or your badge.” “Shut up! Shut up!” he said, I think to the chagrin of the corrections officers. One of the head guys in the jail came over and said, “He’s not ours. We can’t force him to identify himself. Our policy is that they identify themselves.” And stayed there for several hours.

Ultimately, they released me, interference with, I think they said, the judicial process or with a peace officer.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: I was taken to prison, as well. But I think one thing that was left out also in the story, and I think this happened to you, as well, Amy, was that while we were standing waiting to be processed and put on the bus, I was standing there with three credentials around my neck: my Democracy Now! press pass, which has my picture; the RNC press one, which gets you inside the convention; and a separate one, which I was supposed to put on Nicole, but I never actually did, was a limited RNC press one. A man walked up to me, who was not in uniform of St. Paul or Minneapolis police—I was later told he was Secret Service—came up and looked at my RNC press badge, said, “What is this?” I said, “It’s my pass to get inside the Xcel Center.” He said, “Well, you won’t be needing that to go—you’re not going to be going inside the convention center today,” and took it and walked off. I immediately protested. I said, “I want this around my neck to prove I’m an accredited journalist to go inside the convention center.” And he said, “You won’t be needing it today,” walked off.

I asked my arresting officer, who incidentally was not my arresting officer—they just assigned some guy to take the picture of me and process me—he said, “I don’t know who that guy is. He looks like Secret Service.” I said, “Well, why don’t you acknowledge that this was taken, witness it somehow?” And he refused to do so. And I believe they did the same to you. They took that pass off your neck.

AMY GOODMAN: Right. The Secret Service came up, and they—he ripped it off of my neck.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: And I said, “That is my pass. I want a receipt that you have taken that.” But of course, they didn’t give it.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And then, once I was put on the bus, as well—and just to reiterate what you were saying, while I was being arrested, I was, you know, slammed violently. I got scratches on my elbow and bruises on my chest and back. But the most painful part of it was these plastic handcuffs. They were extremely tight. Getting onto the bus, I asked one of the officers, I said, “Can you just cut these off and put on new ones?” because you can’t loosen those. And his response to that was to grab them and tighten them. So it was very painful on the way. I actually still don’t have feeling in part of my hand.

In the Bush years, the right to dissent has been unnaturally restricted and restricted. As one among many examples, national political party conventions have colluded with local police departments to deny these rights of free speech, assembly, and redress of grievances, by forcing demonstrators into restricted areas where the politicos don’t have to see and hear them.

But vicious physical attacks on and arrests of journalists is something that isn’t supposed to happen here, in the land of the free–in the dictatorships of developing countries (all-too-often propped up with the help of the U.S., unfortunately), it might be common. But here? The land to which our forefathers and foremothers gave their lives in order to ensure that it would always be free–Thomas Jefferson must be spinning in his grave.

Why there wasn’t mass outrage about the idea that you can cage up demonstrators and herd them away from the institutions they’re protesting against–or why this idiocy hasn’t been thrown out by the courts–is beyond me. But it’s time for the people to say, enough, we won’t take it anymore.

We demand our right to assemble in public places–including directly outside the gates of those we want to reach.
We demand an end to police violence against peaceful protest.
We demand an end to harassment, assault, and arrest of journalists, including the mainstream press, the alternative press, and citizen-journalists
We demand our rights under the First Amendment to the United states constitution to speak, to be heard, and to register our protests, and our rights as citizens of the United states to vote, and to have our votes counted honestly.

Tell your Senators, your Representatives, and your local political party structure.

And it’s not just journalists. I received this via e-mail from A.N.S.W.E.R this afternoon:

The police have engaged in a widespread riot against social justice organizations, resulting in the arrest of around 300 protesters. Most of the arrested are still in jail, and at least one person with a serious medical condition has been refused care.

Even before the Convention began, protesters had the organizing centers raided. Armed groups of police in the Twin Cities have raided more than half-a-dozen locations since Friday night in a series of “preemptive raids.” The raids and detentions have targeted activists planning to protest the convention, including journalists and videographers from I-Witness Video and the Glass Bead Collective. These media organizations were targeted because of the instrumental role they played in documenting police abuses the 2004 RNC Convention. Their comprehensive video coverage helped more than 400 wrongfully arrested people get their charges thrown out.

You can go sign their petition to protest and demand the release of these hundreds of people.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Some good news in the world of mainstream television. As noted in Huffington Post, MSNBC president Phil Griffin was quoted in the New York Times:

Just in time for the closing rush of the presidential election, MSNBC is shaking up its prime-time programming lineup, removing the long-time host — and one-time general manager of the network — Dan Abrams from his 9 p.m. program and replacing him with Rachel Maddow, who has emerged as a favored political commentator for the all-news cable channel.

I’m lucky enough to live in the Northampton, Massachusetts area, where Maddow got her broadcasting start years ago, as the offbeat news anchor/sidekick on the Dave in the Morning show, on WRNX-FM. I still listened when she did her own morning show on WRSI, also in Northampton, and occasionally caught her show on Air America. She still lives in the area on weekends.

Maddow is smart, sasy, and porogressive, amaziingly well-informed, and has an authoritative voice. Best of luck and congrats, Rachel!

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail