The Washington Post: A Barrier to Communication?

We’re in an extraordinary moment in journalism.

Who needs newspapers when you have Twitter?” many are saying. Others predict that all media as we know it today will become social and that journalists will become storytellers reporting in “interactive” ways. Granted “interactive” reporting hasn’t caught on yet, but most people today do expect interaction on social networks. That’s the “social” part of social media.

Apparently, the Washington Post, however, doesn’t plan to adapt to the emerging Web 2.0 rules of “engagement” but stay in a “we publish and you listen” one-way (pre-Web 2.0) communications time warp. According to Mashable, Managing Editor Raju Narisetti sent a memo to reporters last week reprimanding them for using the newspaper’s official Twitter account to reply to critics: 

“Even as we encourage everyone in the newsroom to embrace social media and relevant tools, it is absolutely vital to remember that the purpose of these Post branded accounts is to use them as a platform to promote news, bring in user generated content and increase audience engagement with Post content. No branded Post accounts should be used to answer critics and speak on behalf of the Post, just as you should follow our normal journalistic guidelines in not using your personal social media accounts to speak on behalf of the Post,” the Oct. 15 memo read.

The memo followed the Post’s publishing of an online guest article arguing that homosexuality is a mental health issue. The article prompted GLAAD, a gay activist group, to rant about it on Twitter and its website. When the official Post Twitter account defended the publishing of the article, saying the paper was working “both sides” of the issue, the GLAAD-led firestorm intensified. 

I agree with the Columbia Journalism Review’s (CJR) opinion that the Post reacted wrong and newspapers should engage openly with readers when they disagree with an editorial decision:

“You can’t force Twitter to become the letters page; it’s a completely different tool. Something more interactive and more immediate. It should be used that way.

“The problem was the response itself, not that it was made. It might have been better to say something like this:

“@GLAAD good point. Did it for balance, but upon reflection, realize the error in judgment. Appreciate the watchful eye. And the debate,” the CJR said.

Part of the Post‘s problem could be that Narisetti is gun shy of Twitter after being forced off it last year for urging more spending on health care. Several journalists at other news organizations have lost their jobs for things they posted on Twitter, most notably Octavia Nasr, senior editor at CNN, who agreed to leave the company after she posted a tweet expressing sadness over the death of a Shiite cleric and spiritual leader of Hezbollah.

Newspapers using Twitter to engage critics with legitimate concerns, however, is not the same as reporters and editors using Twitter to comment on controversial or sensitive issues. Engaging critics on Twitter provides an opportunity to correct misunderstandings, apologise for mistakes, build bridges, and ultimately build stronger relationships. Meanwhile, until the majority of people think reporters and editors shouldn’t try to remain objective, opinionated tweets only inflame people on the other side of the issue and tarnish a journalist’s credibility. 

The marketing expert Valeria Maltoni wrote about social media in a guest article on Beth’s Blog:

“When I talk with groups about this point [social media and shared ownership] and people ask me what happens if someone says you suck? I respond that I lean forward and ask them to tell me in how many ways I suck. No feedback, no learning—and probably talking to yourself. Only when there’s engagement, there’s sharing and communicating. When you refuse to take this step, you are the barrier.”

It’s funny to imagine the Post a barrier to communication in our increasingly connected Web 2.0 world.

Do you think newspapers should engage critics online? Please share your thoughts below.

Will Social Media Kill Traditional Public Relations?

Social media will replace traditional media as the main tool for public relations practioners within two years, according to a new survey by StevensGouldPincus, merger and management consultants to the communications industry.

Today, communications consulting firms devote 30 percent of their total percentage of work to social media as opposed to traditional media. Next year, the percentage will increase to an average of 42 percent. 

“If this trend persists, within the next two years, social media will replace traditional media as PR/PA’s [public relations/public affairs] primary tool for reaching client audiences with news and information,” said Art Stevens, managing partner of StevensGouldPincus. “When you consider that traditional media have been the bedrock of professional PR/PA practice for more than 100 years, the implications are profound.” 

According to the survey, social media are being used across the board, with media relations the dominant function, averaging 36 percent, followed by product marketing (25 percent), and issues advocacy (20 percent).

“Online or off, working with the press remains the top priority for most firms,” Stevens noted.

The also survey indicates that the amount of time spent on social media each month varies slightly by firm, but the most attention goes to Facebook (31 percent), Twitter (29 percent), LinkedIn (18 percent), MySpace (17 percent), and YouTube (14 percent).

For more on the survey, read the press release. For a copy of the complete survey, which includes results by geographical region, write to Art Stevens.

Do you think social media will kill traditional public relations? Please share your ideas in the comments section below.

Video Clip of the Month: Crowd Accelerated Innovation

My October 2009 video clip of the month features TED’s Chris Anderson giving a fascinating talk on a new phenomenon he calls “Crowd Accelerated Innovation.” Web video is driving the global phenomenon, a self-fueling cycle of innovation and learning that he says could be as significant as the invention of the printing press. By watching his video, Anderson says, “you’re part of the crowd that may be about to launch the biggest learning cycle in human history, a cycle capable of carrying all of us to a smarter, wiser, more beautiful place.”  Check it out below and help make history!

Social Media: Democracy’s Ruin or a Better Planet?

With summer over and more time to read in the rainy fall days ahead, I decided to finally buy The Networked Nonprofit: Connecting with Social Media to Drive Change, a book by Beth Kanter and Allison Fine that I’ve been meaning to read since it came out in June. So I drove to the nearest Borders, but it didn’t have the book. Then I drove to Barnes & Nobles. It wasn’t there either.

Then I remembered the words of Jacques Ellul in Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, a brilliant book (but verbose as a French translation) that I read in one of my graduate school international communications courses. The book warns that modern mass communications technologies have opened a gateway for special interests to saturate people’s lives with propaganda and spur them into action—without them ever realizing it. One of the book’s most counter-intuitive points is that the most well-read members of society are most vulnerable to propaganda:

“Naturally, the educated man does not believe in propaganda; he shrugs and is convinced that propaganda has no effect on him. This is, in fact, one of his great weaknesses, and propagandists are well aware that in order to reach someone, one must first convince him that propaganda is ineffectual and not very clever. Because he is convinced of his own superiority, the intellectual is much more vulnerable than anybody else to this maneuver,” Ellul’s book says.

By spending time on Twitter managing my account and some nonprofits’, I’d become convinced that “The Networked Nonprofit: Connecting with Social Media to Drive Change” is one of the best books to come out this year. Don’t get me wrong. I still am certain it is one of the best books—if not the best book—to come out on nonprofits and social marketing. The only thing is nonprofits and social media is a niche market, not one general audience bookstores, such as Borders or Barnes & Nobles, necessarily would seek to serve in suburbia.  My Twitter blinders had me acting on the assumption that the whole world shared my enthusiasm to read Kanter and Fine’s book, but common sense should have told me to buy it on Amazon.

That’s one of the points of Ellul’s book. Propaganda (a term he uses as an umbrella for all forms of information dissemination) is like a drug. People under its influence will stop thinking critically, will only seek out information that supports their beliefs, and will spread their ideology to others who will in turn reinforce their beliefs. They’ll begin to believe most people share—or should share—their viewpoint, and if people don’t, it’s because propaganda has duped them.

“Propaganda also eliminates anxieties stemming from irrational and disproportionate fears,” Ellul’s book says.“The point is to excite them, to arouse their sense of power, their desire to assert themselves, and to arm them psychologically so that they can feel superior to the threat.”

Thanks to social media, today you can limit yourself to news and blog posts from sources you agree with and trust—and block out information with opposing viewpoints—to a degree that would be impossible—if not unimaginable—in decades past.

It’s ironic that shopping for Kanter and Fine’s book reminded me of Ellul’s book. After all, their theses are polar opposites. Ellul believes that propaganda distributed through the mass media is one of the most serious threats facing humanity today, a threat which one day will destroy democracy and freedom “no matter what the good intentions or the good will may be of those who manipulate it.”  The whole idea of Kanter and Fine’s book, however, is that nonprofits delivering their messages (what Ellul would call propaganda) through social media, leveraging connections and increasing impact, can drive change for the betterment of our planet.

Ellul’s book was written 45 years ago and he died in 1994, so it’s anyone’s guess whether he would have only seen a dark promise in social media. To his credit, he anticipated techniques and practices that are more relevant today than in the 1960s. But let’s hope his clairvoyance stops there, and Kanter and Fine’s vision for the future, not Ellul’s, holds true.

What impact do you think social media will have on democracy and the planet? Please share your predictions in the comments section below.

Mexican President Tweets Category 4 Hurricane Alert

In a sign of the (social media) times, Mexican President Felipe Calderon used Twitter this morning to warn his people that Hurricane Karl could hit Mexico as a Category 4. By mid-afternoon, his tweet had been quoted or mentioned in newspapers and radio and television stories around the world.

“An alert for Hurricane Karl in the nation’s central states,” President Calderon’s tweet said in Spanish. “[It] could convert to a Category 4. It will enter through Veracruz around midday.”

President Calderon achieved global media coverage without a press release or news conference. By only sending out a 137-character message on the popular microblogging service, he and his staff presumably were able to focus their time on disaster preparation in the hours before the hurricane hit and not getting the message out. He also seems to have done it without speaking to a single journalist.

President Calderon only opened his @FelipeCalderon Twitter account four months ago. By Sept. 8, he had reached 100,000 followers, prompting him to tweet in Spanish: “We have reached more than 100,000 followers already interested in this way of communication. Thank you and good day to all.” Today, a little more than a week later, he has some 158,000.

President Calderon has been using Twitter to publicize all his administrations achievements, comment on events, issue warnings about storms and weather, and respond personally to questions and suggestions sent to him from the general public.

Accordingly to a comScore study released last month, Twitter is slighly more popular in Mexico than in the United States. The study, documenting Twitter’s surging popularity worldwide, found 13.4 percent of Mexicans age 15 and older visited Twitter.com from a home or work location in June 2010 compared with 11.9 percent of Americans.

Do you think social media means the death of the press release? What about news conferences? Share your thoughts in the comment section below.