Where is today’s Washington, Jefferson, or Adams?

I’m about two-thirds of the way through Joseph Ellis’ biography of George Washington. It’s not a bad read, but Ellis speculates too much on Washington’s motivations without authoritative support. As a result, his attempt at finding the “inner George” falls short.

Not that Ellis didn’t do his homework. His research seems extensive and painstaking. Apparently, there just isn’t much documentation available that reveals Washington’s opinions and innermost thoughts.  (For example, Martha Washington burned all of George’s correspondence with her after his death, according to Ellis.)

I get a little ticked at Ellis when he psychoanalyzes Washington, especially when he contends Washington was overly concerned about his place in history.  I’ve always looked up to Washington, along with Jefferson and Adams, as a man who rose to the moment and put aside his personal agenda for the greater good.  Washington, Jefferson and Adams were all flawed, as people and leaders, but they all acted selflessly and put their countrymen first when it counted.

And after this debt ceiling debacle, I’ll take Washington, flaws and all, any day of the week over the crop of feckless and myopic politicians running the show these day in Washington, D.C. (George’s namesake!)  

Over the past two months, I have waited for just one politician to tell a simple truth: We, as Americans, are going to have to sacrifice now to ensure that future generations have the same opportunities that we did.

All of us will have to pay higher taxes and spending must be cut across the board. Bipartisan Debt Commission Recommendations. Furthermore, eligibility ages for Medicare and Social Security need to be raised and benefits needs to be decreased to make those programs solvent and available for our children and grandchildren. Social Security Trustees Report
 
But no one has owned up to those cold, hard facts. Of course, I wouldn’t expect the Tea Partiers or Progressives to espouse common sense. They are more concerned about their ideology spreading than the future of the country. Unfortunately, they have hijacked the Republican and Democratic parties, with the able assistance of Fox, MSNBC, and websites and bloggers who cater to the narrow-minded.

But even mainstream politicians have shied away from publicly embracing the truth. I suspect they fear it will ruin their chances at re-election and therefore are protecting their political futures. Alas, not a Washington, Jefferson, or Adams in the bunch.

It must have been divine intervention that 235 years ago we had leaders with a sense of destiny.  Now, we’re stuck with a political class that can’t look beyond the next election cycle.

The Media as Prosecutor Fails Again

                Watching coverage of the Casey Anthony verdict, I was struck by a comment from defense attorney Cheney Mason when he accused the media of acting as a “13th juror” in the case. He also went on to rightly criticize lawyers who provided “legal analysis” on television that generated a lot of heat but shed precious little light on the case Mason Blasts Media

            Morgan likely was referring to Nancy Grace, that revolting ghoul who has made millions in the past decade recklessly assassinating   people’s characters. Her “Justice for Caylee” (read “Ratings for Nancy” ) campaign  has suckered in many who either are unaware or have ignored her past McCarthy-like tactics Nancy Grace’s Past Misbehavior

            How ABC and CNN (the latter of which owns Grace’s home network, HLN) allow this toxic menace to contaminate our airwaves and tarnish their images as news outlets is beyond me. They may be enjoying a ratings boon at the present because of her nutty fan base, but I’m convinced Grace’s ethical sins will eventually catch up with her (like McCarthy’s did), and those networks will need to deal with some heavy collateral damage.

             I disagree with Morgan’s assertion the media acted as a 13th juror, however. Instead, I believe some in the media acted as prosecutors. The constant media drumbeat made this case a national sensation, and the incessant coverage reverberated with the real  prosecutors, who were influenced to charge Anthony with first-degree murder (even though the medical examiner would later say on the stand that he could not rule out an accidental death).

            Shame on the prosecutors. The glare of the media spotlight made them lose sight of their mission. If this hadn’t been such a high-profile case, I doubt if the prosecution ever would have charged Anthony with a capital crime that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  

            And many in the media trampled on ethical codes with their slanted, simple-minded coverage. Indeed, some were not journalists in the true sense of the word, and the dividing line between news and opinion continues to blur. But mainstream journalists and news operations also dove headfirst into the murky ethical waters. These people need to be reminded that their job is to cover the news fairly and independently, and not act as publicists and surrogate finger-pointers for the police and the prosecution.

             For those of us in northeast Ohio, the media’s behavior in the Anthony case is somewhat reminiscent of how the defunct Cleveland Press embarrassed itself during the infamous Sam Shepherd case Media Ethics and Sam Shepherd

            Fortunately, the Anthony sideshow reaffirms,  to me at least, that the jury system works. It shields all of us from the Nancy Graces of the world. The guilty may be set free occasionally because it is not a perfect system, but that is the price we pay to protect those wrongly accused.

            Having a  jury of our peers examine facts and evidence to determine guilt  is much preferable to letting some publicity-hungry television pundit or, worse yet, that bloodthirsty mob outside the Orlando courthouse indulge their worst impulses.             

Image Credit: Mike Essl via flickr

Brand – an abused five-letter word

            I recently read a blog post in which the writer discussed his interview with the “CEO of a brand.” I stopped reading because I always thought that companies, not product or service brands, had CEOs.  Did I miss something?
           
            I even went online and checked out the brand in question and its company ownership. The blogger did indeed mean the CEO of the company, but he is one of those new media types who is quite bright but uses buzzwords excessively, often hindering the clarity of his writing.

            Then,  I came to the realization that the word brand has lost its brand identity. This poor little word has been sapped of its narrative strength and no longer has a precise meaning.  It joins the ranks of other linguistic weaklings such as integrated, synergy, and media that glib marketers and obtuse writers have debilitated.

            I remember when brand actually had a distinct meaning. Chevrolet, Pampers, and Bounty were brands. General Motors, Proctor & Gamble, and J.P. Smucker were companies.  (Of course, brand also meant the mark burned into livestock.  It had two meanings, but they were easily distinguishable).

            Over the last ten years, brand morphed into a synonym for reputation, at least in the public relations realm.  We protect the “company’s brand.”  Some of the more self-indulgent of us create “personal brands,” in which we market ourselves based on our alleged prowess and reputation. I never  grasped  the concept of marketing  myself like I was a diaper (“Hey, I’m a super-absorbent team player”), but it’s all the rage.

            But the CEO of a brand? No way. Brands and companies aren’t synonymous. A company is more than just a product or a symbol for consumers.  A company represents people and their ideas, skills, relationships, successes, and failures. 

             Unfortunately, marketers and many public relations pros have lost sight of that in blind pursuit of making a sale. These hucksters often miss the compelling storylines that enhance a company’s reputation and trustworthiness (and help improve sales and the bottom line).

            I’m probably just a lone wolf on this one, however. Maybe I should get over myself and accept this word butchery. In fact, I should join the crowd and start working on my personal brand. I’m not getting any younger; I have to get with it. What I need to do is come up with my own personal catchphrase. Yes, that will grab some attention! Too bad nothing rhymes with Roberts…

“Googlegate” = A PR Nightmare For The PR Industry

I wonder if the head honchos at Burson-Marsteller are so deep in crisis mode that they have yet to put “Googlegate” in its proper perspective as a self-inflicted wound.

The storied PR agency has been pilloried over the last week after it was revealed Facebook hired the agency to spread negative information (more like  misinformation) about Google. Facebook hired Burson-Marsteller to smear Google

Burson-Marsteller’s initial responses to the revelation serve as textbook examples of lousy crisis communications. The initial Burson-Marsteller statement was purposefully sketchy and included a backhanded acknowledgment of bad behavior. To add to the damage, the agency started censoring negative comments about the fiasco on its Facebook page  Burson-Marsteller deletes critical Facebook comments.

I’m curious as to how many Burson-Marsteller reps have counseled clients to be honest and upfront and admit mistakes during a crisis? That’s a basic tenet of ethical crisis communications – tell the truth as you know it and promptly admit when you’re wrong. Burson-Marsteller needed to follow this simple and sage advice.

But more importantly, why did the agency even accept this sleazy assignment? I know Facebook is probably one of the “sexiest” clients out there, but having your media relations people hide whom they are representing while bad-mouthing the client’s competition is unethical. Burson-Marsteller’s parent company, WPP, distinctly describes such lack of transparency as out of bounds: “We will not undertake work which is intended or designed to mislead, including in relation to social, environmental and human rights issues;”

This is stuff you expect from fringe players in lowball political campaigns; not a high-end, top-5 firm like Burson-Marsteller. Although I’m convinced Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg would sell his grandmother’s personal information for a buck, I’m disappointed that a major PR firm would stoop to this level.

Burson-Marsteller’s actions reinforced the negative stereotype of PR professionals as hacks who will sell their soul for a client. The only way to combat that perception is for agencies to follow their ethical codes and fire clients who ask them to behave unethically.

At its core, public relations is all about storytelling. All organizations have a story to tell, and often times the stories are compelling and motivate people to act. Facebook, with its phenomenal growth and reach, has an incredible story that rivals Google’s. Maybe that’s why I’m still surprised the folks at Burson-Marsteller took the low road with such a high-profile client.

Traditional Media Needs Public Relations More Than PR Needs Traditional Media

My original headline for this post was a question. I was going to ask if traditional media reporters need public relations pros more than PR needs the media. But I’m convinced the pendulum has swung toward PR. The mutual dependence between the media and PR remains, but print and broadcast are no longer in the driver’s seat.

Let’s face it. Print and broadcast are fading in influence Pew: Print and broadcast news in decline Traditional media outlets are struggling to remain relevant because their delivery systems have been made obsolete by online, digital, and social media.

The Pew Research  study forecasts more newsroom cuts this year. And every traditional media journalist I have talked to in the past 10 years bemoans the lack of support on the job. They not only cover more stories, but they have to produce them for their core medium as well as for online and/or digital audiences. That leaves precious little time for actual reporting.

That’s where smart, savvy PR practitioners can help. As always, a primary PR function at any organization is to serve as an information resource for the media.  But media relations practitioners now can become more aggressive in pitching stories (legitimate stories, that is, not fluffy sales pitches) to overworked reporters in need of fresh ideas.

That’s a win-win for PR. We have been trained to pitch stories to print and broadcast journalists because media placement gives messages and stories more credibility. People are going to believe a newspaper or television news story more than a website post from an organization, right?

Well, maybe not so much these days. The public’s trust in the media continues to erode Gallup media credibility. What’s eye-opening about the Gallup tracking poll is that three-quarters of the American public now question the credibility of the traditional media. As a former newspaper reporter, I think that is an unfair perception. But, as a former PR practitioner, I know perception is reality.

People have always trusted their friends and families more than institutions, such as the media or the government or the banks. That’s human nature. But, in the last decade, all three of those institutions have apparently let the American people down, and the public’s cynicism toward them is palpable.

That’s something all PR practitioners need to remember. Traditional media are still important, but online, social, and digital media offer avenues to reach stakeholders directly. And those stakeholders are influenced more by their Facebook friends and Twitter followers than the traditional media.  As a result, the traditional media’s role as an information gatekeeper is diminishing.

One of the assignments I gave my Media Relations & Publicity class this semester was to write a Social Media News Release. Shift Communication’s SMNR template. The SMNR contains as little text as possible and relies on multimedia elements and links to tell a story. SMNRs are not necessarily meant for the news media; they typically are posted on an organization’s website, sent to bloggers, and linked to on a Facebook fan page and/or Twitter account. Thus, there is no need to worry about a reporter or editor cutting the release or inserting a factual error.

I’m captivated by SMNRs because they tell a story in different ways, via text, audio and video. Consumers not only want stories told in a variety of formats – they expect it. And the consumer decides how much information they want on a topic – the SMNR gives them the option to click links if they choose to seek more detail on a story or issue.

The text-heavy traditional press release still has its place, especially in financial public relations, but I see the SMNR eclipsing the press release in the near future.

So, where does all this leave my friends in traditional media? Are they going to remain overwhelmed, stuck in a dying profession, mistrusted by their customers and, to add insult to injury, on the passive end of the Media/PR relationship? Is the future that glum?

Nah.  Print and broadcast media still are an important public. Americans are keenly interested in what’s going on in their backyards, and traditional media dominate community news coverage. Furthermore, public relations pros know the importance of solid community relations, so building and developing strong traditional media relationships is a critical part of the job.
The traditional media need to vigilantly protect their local news niche, however. The current trend of cutting newsroom staffs is a sure way of losing that advantage.  Time will tell if they can maintain that edge over online and digital competitors.

Time to Brag about Kent State’s Student Media

I have the privilege to serve on the Journalism and Mass Communication Media Board at Kent State. It’s a lot more fun than other boards and committees because we deal with top-notch students who are “going places” when they graduate.

          Basically, the board picks leaders of various KSU student media, including the newspaper, radio station and television station, and oversees allocations of funds. (We don’t fiddle with content nor should we). This week we picked student media leaders for fall semester.

          Here’s where the bragging starts. These “kids” are extraordinarily smart and savvy. They are leaders with passion and vision. They are dedicated, enthusiastic, brimming with ideas. And, perhaps most importantly, they all know that media is a business.

          They realize the influence of traditional media is fading as online, digital, and social media continue their ascension. Content must be impactful and meaningful to the individual reader, listener or viewer or it will be ignored.

          But they just don’t dwell on content. They brainstorm about process; about new and inventive ways to reach audiences. Before I write something really insipid about how they think outside the box, I’ll talk briefly about three of them.

          Frank Yonkof was named editor of the Daily Kent Stater. Frank, a former student of mine, is an earnest, reserved young man who epitomizes the cliché, “Still waters run deep.” His thoughtfulness was evident in a detailed and practical presentation on how to make the paper more relevant and interesting to the typically distracted KSU student.   

          From all accounts, Frank is well-liked and respected in the newsroom. He’s the kind of leader you want to do a good job for. He has a tough task ahead, but I’m convinced that he will excel and leave an indelible mark on the Stater.

          Nathan Edwards was reappointed general manager of TV2.  TV2 is not just a campus television station; it is broadcast on the local cable franchise so it reaches about 30,000 households. Nathan and his predecessors have made the most of that by expanding news and sports coverage to attract more of the community audience (and advertisers).

           Nathan, also a former student, is a talented “idea guy” and a gifted mentor to his 120-member staff. Although Nathan and I tested each other’s patience in the classroom, he is a charismatic general manager who, along with his staff, has helped make TV2 the star of student media this year. I fully expect the same outstanding performance from him in the fall.

          Finally, Ellen Kirtner was reappointed general manager of Black Squirrel Radio. I love BSR. It’s fun-loving with a subversive edge. And it has the strongest brand identity of any of the student media outlets.

          Ellen did the unthinkable. Her allocation request for next year was $5,000 lower than what the station received this school year, thanks to watchful budgeting, successful fundraising and a profitable mobile DJ service. Committee members figuratively fell to their knees in her honor.

          Frank, Nathan, and Ellen are guided by wise faculty advisors and an attentive student media business staff. But I can’t help but be impressed by this trio. They face the same budget and personnel issues their “professional” counterparts deal with daily, except these students also take a full course load.

          Unlike many of the pros, these three aren’t averse to taking risks to stem the defection of audience and advertisers. Although the current business trends aren’t encouraging, Frank, Nathan, and Ellen make me optimistic about the future of KSU student media.

Twitter: the “anti-social” social media

Despite all the hype over Twitter’s five-year anniversary last month, I still can’t decide whether Twitter is the social media communications powerhouse so many in the blogosphere and traditional media have deemed it to be.

Except for one friend, a few colleagues, and a handful of students, I don’t know many people who use it regularly. But if you look at the part that Twitter played in spurring protests against authoritarian rule in the Middle East, you cannot diminish its impact.   

Now, a new research study appears to support my skepticism. Yahoo Research’s Twitter Study analyzed 260 million tweets and found that half of them were sent by about 20,000 people, or 1 percent of Twitter account holders.

Twitter appears to be operating in a vacuum, as the study concluded that celebrities, marketers, bloggers, and the media dominate the Twittersphere. To be fair, the study’s sample was relatively small, considering that a billion or so tweets are sent every week.

Another study conducted by the Pew Research Center adds to my growing confusion. Who Uses Twitter indicates that Twitter usage (at least on the receiving end) is somewhat diverse, with about 8 percent of “online” Americans using it. Still, a disproportionate amount of those users are young urbanites.

These studies are intriguing, but I remain seated on the cyberfence about whether Twitter will become meaningful to a broader, more democratic audience.
Feeding my indecision is my perception of Twitter as a cold, superficial, and impersonal social medium. The 140- character count is great for brevity but can limit depth and emotion. Even the terminology lacks heart. On Facebook, you have “friends” and you “share.”  On the more frigid Twitter, you have “followers” and you “link.”

Twitter doesn’t give me the warm and fuzzies. And isn’t that what social media is supposed to do, at least on a subconscious level? We connect with friends, we express ourselves, we reach out and find kindred spirits – all liberating, heartening stuff. That’s the true power of social media.

A columnist for Wired (forgive my lack of transparency but I cannot remember his name) wrote a few years back that Twitter has four uses, all dealing with promotion:

1. Promote yourself
2. Promote a viewpoint
3. Promote a product
4. Promote a service

Maybe that’s why I’m hesitant about embracing Twitter. I have an account, but I never use it because I don’t want to hear a sales pitch. Apparently, if the Yahoo study is correct, that sentiment applies to 99 percent of Twitter’s account holders.

Nevertheless, I tell my public relations students they need a Twitter account, and they need to use it. It is just another way to reach their publics, particularly the media.

Twitter is a solid promotional tool. But I also tell my students – over and over – that public relations isn’t just about conveying messages and selling stuff. The cornerstone of effective public relations is developing mutually beneficial relationship with a diverse set of stakeholders, not just consumers or customers. That is how organizations build credibility and trust.

Twitter may be a two-way communications tool, but the apparent takeover of the medium by marketers and self-promoters doesn’t bode well for Twitter’s future as a relationship-building tool. Indeed, if the trend continues, Twitter could become the anti-social social medium.

March Madness: Lowly truTV upsets No. 1 seed ESPN

For me, the first sign of spring is the NCAA men’s college basketball tournament. Forget the warmer temps, the longer daylight hours, or even the welcome sight of cardinals returning to my backyard. I shut out all that distracting stuff; instead, I sit in “my” chair rooting for small colleges, some of which I never heard of, to outmaneuver the power players at the big dance.

          March Madness brings out my love for the underdog, be it Butler, Richmond, Virginia Commonwealth, or even Akron (sorry KSU fans). This year, there is a lot more to love. Instead of CBS switching randomly from one game to another in the early rounds, all the games can be seen in their entirety on one of four channels:  CBS, TBS, TNT, and truTV.

          Yes, truTV. I’ve never watched it before. It’s one of those channels in the outer Mongolia of my cable landscape (channel 62 to be exact). Apparently, it is the old Court TV, which I never watched either.

          CBS had exclusive rights to the tournament for years, but the NCAA’s hefty asking price and broadcast networks’ declining revenues prompted CBS to partner with Turner Entertainment last year to pony up $10.8 billion to land rights for the tourney over the next 14 years. Turner owns truTV, TBS, and TNT.

          The loser in this deal was ESPN, which negotiated with the NCAA but fell short CBS/Turner deal. Apparently, CBS turned up the heat on the NCAA by suggesting it might drop regular season men’s basketball coverage if the CBS/Turner package wasn’t accepted.

          ESPN certainly couldn’t use that threat with the NCAA. College basketball is ESPN’s lifeblood in the winter months.
         
          Despite the setback, ESPN remains the dominant sports network in television and the undisputed king of cable television. Cable subscribers pay more than $4 a month for ESPN, compared with just under $1 for TNT and a dime for truTV.  And those are 2009 numbers Cable subscription fees.

          But a look at the bigger picture suggests ESPN’s brand is increasingly coming under attack from the competition. Comcast also has placed a huge target on ESPN’s back.

          The largest cable system in the country, Comcast was criticized for entering the media content business when it announced plans to buy NBC last year. But Comcast officials explained they wanted to give ESPN a run for the sports dollar. Comcast already owned Versus, The Golf Channel and nearly a dozen regional sports networks.  With NBC, it now carries the NFL, the Olympics, golf, tennis, college football and more hockey.  

          Realistically, Comcast officials probably know they can’t do much damage to ESPN’s sports programming brand. But they can use the Comcast/NBC sports network as leverage when negotiating with ESPN over subscription fees for Comcast cable systems.

          That begs two questions: Would cable viewers accept losing ESPN for a Comcast/NBC sports network? I don’t think so. But is ESPN willing to play hardball and risk Comcast dropping it from its cable systems? I doubt it.

          Comcast would appear to have the upper hand in the negotiating game if its forces ESPN to choose between losing market penetration or subscription fee revenue on Comcast cable systems. This is a big deal for ESPN because cable networks typically derive half of their revenues from subscription fees.

          Strange as it may seem, the mighty ESPN appears to be the underdog in this match-up.

Why Do I Hate Anderson Cooper So Much?

Anderson Cooper makes my skin crawl. I grab the remote every time I hear his nasally voice or see those beady, baby blue eyes. 

 My animosity is growing increasingly intense. I check the cable news ratings every week and take special pleasure in seeing his CNN show’s ratings drop.  And, although I hate to admit it, I was rooting for the Egyptian mob that shoved him around last month.
           
Obviously, my feelings are irrational. I’m sure many viewers find him  quite pleasant. He’s attractive, intelligent, and successful. Plus, he’s got a great head of prematurely gray hair that makes him look distinguished. And he’s worth a zillion dollars (his mother is Gloria Vanderbilt of THE old money Vanderbilts).

            Am I jealous? Well, of course I am! But that’s only part of my visceral reaction to Anderson. (If I was jealous of everyone who was richer and more successful than I, my head would have exploded 20 years ago).

            It’s his on-air persona that gives me heartburn.  He lacks humility. He knows that he’s smart, successful, and good-looking. He oozes a subtle smarminess, if you will.  He is irritatingly glib. I look at him and see a guy who thinks he knows better than his viewers but deigns to explain the world to us, the great unwashed, as an act of noblesse oblige. 

            Maybe I’m being mean-spirited. I don’t know the guy. He could be a humble, self-effacing fellow. He was born to incredible wealth and privilege, but he did work his way up to the top of a tough profession. He deserves credit for that.
           
            So, in an effort to be fair, I sat down and watched “AC 360” recently to open my mind and give Anderson another chance.            

            I still can’t stand him. The smirk, the self-importance and the holier than thou attitude were front and center. Then, I came to an epiphany of sorts. His show is not about the news of the day – it’s about Anderson’s reaction to the news of the day.

             Anderson is the story on “AC 360.”  Or how Anderson gamely covered the story. Or Anderson’s take on any given situation, issue or trend. Anderson’s style is to dominate the news. Whether he’s losing his composure in flooded New Orleans, having his body battered by hurricane –force winds off the Florida coast or getting pushed around in Egypt, it’s ALWAYS about Anderson on “AC 360.”

            Every on- air interview is shown split-screen so we can see Anderson’s awesome expressions. He plays the part of the “serious newsman” deftly, with his steady gaze and furled brow. But I teach students that the subject of the article or piece is the star;  not the reporter. The split screen detracts from that. I understand that is part of the broadcast genre’s creation of “news personalities.” Anderson is not the only one guilty of the practice.

            But he epitomizes what’s wrong with celebrity journalists. And that, I believe, is what makes me cringe when his unctuous self darkens my television screen.

            I’ve been thinking about Anderson since I found out about the death of David Broder, the esteemed political journalist. I began reading Broder’s columns 25 years ago and always found his work insightful and enlightening. Here’s a sample of his work in the Washington Post over the last 30 years: Broder in his own words

            Broder wrote analytical commentary that genuinely illuminated the political process. He shied away from the horse race aspects of political news; instead, he adroitly explored how government worked, or, in many cases, how and why government was falling short. I learned a lot from him.         

            Broder will be missed. So will his in-depth, inconspicuous journalistic approach. That reporting ethic is dying out, I’m afraid, as the Anderson Coopers of the national media continue to serve us self-absorbed style instead of substance.

A Bright Patch in a Dreary News Landscape

          In the introductory Media Writing classes I teach, the number of aspiring newspaper journalists has dropped to alarmingly low levels over the past five years. Over the last two semesters, of the 55 students I taught, just one wanted to work for a newspaper.

            She has since changed her major.

            That’s sad news. Newspapers are noble institutions, and reporters help watch over our society. But the economic realities of the newspaper industry have understandably scared away potential print reporters. The business model is broken, courtesy of the news and advertising alternatives  offered by online, social, and digital media.

            I disagree with the lament that journalism is suffering because newspapers are in trouble. I often hear that from news types who don’t realize that newspapers can’t be all things to all people anymore. Newspapers are niche operations now and should be operated as such. Click here to see the financial writing on the wall: http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/newspapers_economics.php

            Journalism is changing – actually transforming –- and it’s fascinating to watch.  Online news operations are overtaking print and are steadily gaining credibility in my eye.

            ProPublica, a foundation-supported online news operation, won the Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting in 2010. And while bloggers may not be considered traditional journalists, some blog posts do meet the journalistic standards of authenticity, credibility, and objectivity. They merit attention. 

            But the online journalism that intrigues me the most is the community-based operations springing up. The most noteworthy is Patch.com, AOL’s venture into hyperlocal news:  http://www.patch.com/. Patch.com, which AOL bought in 2009, has established hyperlocal news networks in 18 states and the District of Columbia.

            Think of a Patch as a constantly updated online newspaper covering one town but with social media’s interactivity, a magazine’s diversity of content, and a weekly newspapers’ community-minded tone.

            In Ohio, Patches popped up this year covering suburban communities  near Akron and Cleveland. I’ve watched the Kent Patch for the past month, and I admire the approach: http://kent.patch.com/  It’s an informative mix of traditional news (cops, governments, schools), along with news you can use and a heavy emphasis on interaction with the public.

            The interactivity differentiates Patch from conventional news websites. It even offers a news-on-demand feature, a Q and A in which users can ask questions (and get answers) about local events and issues. A number of hyperlocal news operations, notably Voice of San Diego http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/, actively answer questions and pursue story ideas and tips from users, meeting an underserved need that print journalism has virtually ignored.

            Indeed, the Kent Patch reporter, Matt Fredmonsky, frequently hangs out at a local coffee shop or deli and invites the public to meet him there. I worked as a newspaper reporter for 13 years, and the thought of meeting with readers regularly never occurred to me or my editors. It just wasn’t done. Readers had to come to us.

            Maybe that’s why newspapers are becoming increasingly irrelevant. So much of print (and broadcast) news seems written specifically for the reporters’ sources, rather than the readers.  If an issue or event isn’t impactful or meaningful to the reader or viewer or user, it’s not really news.  Reporters often forget that the public is no longer dependent on traditional media’s delivery systems or news judgment.

            The folks at Patch.com realize that online, social, and digital media have empowered the public. They’re listening to their audience. Although I have no clue whether the Patches are making money or will eventually turn a profit, I’m impressed by the boldness and the democracy inherent in this experiment.