February 15, 2017
by Dan Ward
Automated fact-checking may be the wave of the future, according to this Poynter Institute story, and that could be a good thing if it begins to add objectivity to what is currently opinion journalism.
Instead of checking facts and declaring them correct or false, many “fact checkers” today deal in degrees of accuracy, judging stories according to a scale of truthfulness. Human judgment is required to determine whether a story is true, mostly true or half true, and that judgment requires a subjective review that inevitably is influenced by journalists’ feelings about a topic. So instead of getting a verdict on whether a statement is true or false, we get an opinion that factors in bias, assumptions and context.
From the story about the goal of automation: “The state of technology and the maturity of fact-checking organizations today make it possible to take the first steps toward that goal.”
In a nascent industry that issues rulings like “Pants on Fire” and “Four Pinocchios,” the term “maturity” rates a Half True at best.
But of course, that’s just my opinion.
February 13, 2017
by Roger Pynn
An interesting article in Tactics, a publication of the Public Relations Society of America, makes a case for writing as the most sought-after skill in public relations. With apologies to the author Hanna Porterfield, let me say that writing is just a bar for entry. What I want is people with critical thinking skills … who hopefully are writers.
Of course, you have to be able to put your thoughts “on paper” in this business. But I can teach even a fair writer to do better work in that area. What I can’t do, I’ve found, is teach people to logically think through a problem or challenge instinctively.
Why? I think it stems from what and how they are taught in school. Few public relations programs I’ve seen have more than one – if even that – course addressing how to think through the challenges you’ll face as a practitioner.
Sure, it is true, that in your early days in our world you will be doing sometimes repetitive research to find out what has already been published on a topic, or to create a media list or identify thought leaders. And you’ll be asked to write a lot less than the Great American Novel. But if you are truly cut out for public relations, you’ll approach each of those tasks by asking one big question.
“Why?” is the question that should drive everything. When you understand why you are doing something, why information is important, why the three paragraph release or blog post fits into an overall communication program, you’ll be on your way to bigger assignments.
We’re trying to hire an entry-level communications specialist now. To us, entry level is someone with a couple of years of experience under their belt. They should be looking for that second job … one that gives them the chance to write bigger things, be part of creating strategies and take their place on the front line with clients and community.
The biggest challenge for us right now is finding that person who can think … as well as write.
February 10, 2017
by Dan Ward
I read a tweet today in which George Orwell was quoted: “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is public relations.”
We’ve written often on these pages about the changing industry of public relations and how we often tell client stories in ways that no longer involve journalists.
Orwell today could just as easily say that public relations is telling stories that deserve to be told, but which journalists do not see fit to print.
February 8, 2017
by Vianka McConville
If you’re looking for whistleblowers in the era of email hacking, why not list a phone number?
The New York Times has a system to receive confidential news tips which includes messaging apps, encrypted emails and snail mail, but omits a phone number. Unless the line was bugged, I would think a phone call would be the safest way to share confidential information.
As someone who has tried to call reporters at the Times, I assume direct phone numbers are nowhere to be found due to the volume of calls the publication receives on a daily basis. The phone system is a fortress. But that can be a blessing and a curse; reporters may avoid the world’s worst story ideas, but also could miss out on the next big tip.
Is it an attempt to thwart a deluge of unrelated calls or have people become too comfortable behind screens and encrypted messages to actually talk to folks?
February 3, 2017
by Dan Ward
When I first read about the violent protests at UC Berkeley over a planned speech by Milo Yiannopoulos, I was prepared to respond from the viewpoint of the middle-aged curmudgeon I’ve become.
I started a post about free speech coming full circle, with the birthplace of “the Free Speech Movement” now serving as a location for protests against speech. Why is it, I was about to write, that young people today (“those darn kids”) seem less interested in protecting free speech than being protected from it?
But then my hope was restored by a Berkeley freshman, Shivam Patel, who was quoted at the end of this CNN story about the protest.
“It’s a sad irony in the fact that the Free Speech Movement was founded here and tonight, someone’s free speech got shut down. It might have been hateful speech, but it’s still his right to speak.”
Thank you, Shivam, for recognizing that the First Amendment protects even speech that makes us uncomfortable.