Jack of All Blogs » General

TV Reporters Manipulated by Social Media

Andrew G.R. — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:04:34 +0000

Beyond all of the usual modern techno-marvels that we’ve become accustomed to when watching the nightly news, the more recent advent of Twitter, Facebook and YouTube have revolutionized the electronic media. Because rather than use these as tools to help provide better coverage, the media moguls at the major cable stations have chosen instead to use these instant audience inputs as a vehicle by which to superficially tailor their coverage, and the behavior of their reporters. So instead of richer content and context, we get what could almost pass for a soap opera.

Sure, we’re all saddened by the dramatic destruction that the recent earthquake in Haiti has caused. The human cost is graphically portrayed by the legions of TV camera crews that fan out daily across the remnants of Port au Prince. Under bright sunshine, the ruined white concrete infrastructure stands out in bold relief against a stunning bright blue sky. It seems that the ground not covered by sheet-wrapped corpses is occupied by the newly homeless, as they wait in seemingly endless queues for food and water. There’s no disputing that, from both a humanitarian and news perspective, we do indeed need to see these images. Actually, and largely as result of viewing such footage, the usually generous American public has responded to this disaster by donating beyond all expectations.

The media has always thrived, even before the Twitter age, on its’ claim to immediacy, to bringing us, the viewing public, the latest in what’s happening. And so they perennially try to scoop each other, competing for our nightly affections-and the profits that more sponsors bring them. We rightly or wrongly rely on reporters, who by the very nature of their profession, are supposed to give us a clear lens through which to see the world. Supposedly dispassionate, and free of all prejudice or bias, they are paid to observe and communicate. It’s a cold-blooded business, but they get paid damned well to do it.

Yet, the role that Twitter and other instant messaging vehicles played in the changing behavior of some cable reporters during the Haiti coverage is remarkable. I can understand how viewers can become upset by seeing such horror, especially in graphic detail. Many have, albeit unfairly, criticized on-site reporters for not becoming rescuers. As an example, and very much as a result of audience twittering, Anderson Cooper of CNN was no longer simply covering the Haiti story. He now became a part of it, as he was extensively taped carrying a small child through the rubble, to safety. And CNN played this rescue over and over in it’s promos.

Don’t get me wrong, hi-tech can, and is, often a great thing-especially in the TV news business. But, when instant comments from Twitter cause instant reactions from the media honchos, the result is at best cheap and at its worst just phony. Anderson Cooper as John Wayne? That’s even a stretch for TV.

The Underestimated Value of a Link

Andrew G.R. — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:16:55 +0000

Some people want a hug, I just want a link.

Many major media organizations are stingy when it comes to link love. I’ve had the good fortune of getting several of my blogs mentioned in the mainstream press. However, it is a rare day when they actually link to my Website. And boy does that piss me off.

It’s like an ice cream sundae without the ice cream; steak and potatoes without the meat. I appreciate the blog mention or using me for a quote, but when you leave out the link, you deflate my heart. I’m left to wonder what could have been. Where would traffic had gone if that little ol’ URL was included?

And why are these links left out? Because ‘journalists’ don’t want to do their jobs. They are too lazy to vet out the good links from the bad ones. (It’s really not that hard). The organizations that hire reporters set policies that do very little to help bloggers. Because the reality is, they acknowledge bloggers – the very people who have shaken the foundation of their industry – because they have to.

It might be enough for Oprah to simply mention your name, but that is not true of established media outlets. Sure, getting your blog out there on a TV show or in a newspaper helps – but it’s nothing compared to what a link would do.

Perhaps your experience has been different. Let us know in the comments section below.

But in the future, I will only lend my time to help the media if I am guaranteed a link.

My Name Is Everywhere

Andrew G.R. — Sun, 02 May 2010 21:00:59 +0000

Ever meet someone with the same name and get that warm fuzzy feeling? That doesn’t happen to me. In fact, I have the opposite reaction: I get pissed.

See, it’s not just my first name…it’s my last name too! Both are common. A quick Google search turns up the CEO of a major clothing company, an orthodontist in Tucson, a big-time radio exec — even a director of gay pornography. Well I’m none of those things…thankfully. I’m me.

A name is supposed to be uniquely yours. It’s not something that should be shared with thousands of undeserving strangers.

Naming a kid is tricky business. I would imagine every parent is faced with the difficulty of finding something they can see themselves yelling for the rest of this life time. And when they finally figure it out, there are other hurdles to clear:

- You can rule out the name of almost everyone you have ever known or met. Anyone who has made some sort of impression on you (be it good or bad) has claimed ownership on moniker. Most people we meet leave an indelible impression on us.

- To honor or not to honor. Different ‘rules’ apply to different religions, but many people are faced with the struggle of incorporating the names of loved ones into their child’s name.

- There is a generational desperation to deviate from the norm, meaning that most people can relate with the fact that I hate my name doppelgangers. In order to combat that, people have chosen “new” names. But after a while, these names become the ‘Johns” of today. Yell the name “Jayden” in any city park and you’ll see 10 kids turn back.

I guess there are some good points to having a common name. For instance, my ex-girlfriends probably get a kick out of thinking that I might be the gay director when they Google my name. It also means that when people finally do track me down, I know they’ve put some effort into it.

There are no winners in this name game. Just a bunch of us who are called the same thing. Sometimes I think about writing my name twins and asking them to make a change. Or perhaps getting us all together to see what we have in common. That means they probably hate me too!

Protect Your Online Reputation…Always…Forever

Andrew G.R. — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:40:08 +0000

If you dig deep enough, you can uncover embarrassing dirt on anyone. But I would like to respectfully disagree with Techcrunch founder Michael Arrington’s assertion that “reputation is dead.”

Do I think that a picture of a bong-wielding 17-year-old should jeopardize his/her livelihood when they’re 30? Absolutely not. But I would also like to submit the fact that there are plenty of 17 year olds who do not inhale…or are at least smart enough to not get photographed.

A quick Google search of a recent hire at my full-time gig revealed an ugly message board posting from several years back. The guy who is now my coworker posted on a sports Website that the fan of another team was a “f*g” who should “go suck a d*ick.”

Now while Michael Arrington might forgive the public message, and apparently my HR department does too, I would not. Maybe I’m not a nice person. Or maybe I am looking for the cream of the crop – the people who understand that a censor is necessary to live a good and noble life. If you were working for me, I would want you to rely on this “filter” when making business decisions.

The more of these transgressions you have, the more you limit yourself from future options. Why risk excluding anyone? I argue that individuals must change the way they think to assume that everything they do and say (maybe even think!) will end up as part of the public record.

I’m not thumping a bible or suggesting you live a vanilla life. I’m just warning today’s generation that they should not assume society will evolve towards a mentality of forgiveness. We’ve never done it before, so why would we start now?

The Foreplay Is Almost Over, Nexus One Ready to Drop

Andrew G.R. — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:43:28 +0000

The day I decided that I want a Nexus One and to stick with Verizon as my wireless service provider, is the day I set my expectations too high and will inevitably be let down.

I am a research whore. Crunching numbers, organizing charts and comparison grids come with the turf. So when looking for a phone to replace my embarrassingly lame LG Dare, I knew the decision wouldn’t be easy.

It wasn’t until I took a friend’s Droid and carried it around for a day, that I realized there’s no way I could accept the device’s early 90s shape – no matter what my “data” revealed.

Every day, like a child, I’ve been Googling “Nexus One” “Verizon.” Now the rumored drop date of March 23 is here, and all I hear are crickets.

WHEN WILL THE NEXUS ONE BE AVAILABLE ON VERIZON?

Here I am, and army of one, looking to do my part to help Google’s sluggish N1 sales.

Eventually I will have my Nexus One, and even if it is a huge let down, I’ll be thankful for the joy I’ve found in anticipation. Besides, it won’t be long until something else comes along that catches my eye.

Dear Mobile Giants, Untether Us Already!