This weekend people around the world will gather to celebrate one of the biggest events of the year, New Year’s Eve. To wrap up our InSites for the Future series, Vanguard’s event manager Scott LaLonde looks at the future of event planning.

2012 Will Set A New Standard for Green/Sustainable Events

Source: Convention Industry Council

Associations, government [...]]]>

This weekend people around the world will gather to celebrate one of the biggest events of the year, New Year’s Eve. To wrap up our InSites for the Future series, Vanguard’s event manager Scott LaLonde looks at the future of event planning.

2012 Will Set A New Standard for Green/Sustainable Events

Source: Convention Industry Council

Associations, government organizations and nonprofits that pride themselves on hosting “green” events may have an eye-opening 2012. The event industry’s first-ever guidelines for environmentally sustainable events are in the final stages of creation and will be rolled out in the new year. The guidelines, created through a partnership of the Convention Industry Council, ASTM Standards (formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials), Green Meeting Industry Council and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will set new standards and criteria measuring the environmental impact of event components, including venue, food and beverage, transportation, audio/visual production and accommodations. Given the potential for media and communicators to scrutinize the legitimacy of  “green” events, those who want to promote sustainable events in 2012 and beyond will need to evaluate their plans using these new standards.

– By Scott LaLonde

I knew very little about Andrew Rossi’s documentary Page One: Inside the New York Times when I sat down in an E Street Cinema theater to see it with a group of my colleagues.  But I quickly discovered that Page One gives an unprecedented look at the inner workings of the Times’ legendary newsroom at a time in which the newspaper [...]]]>

I knew very little about Andrew Rossi’s documentary Page One: Inside the New York Times when I sat down in an E Street Cinema theater to see it with a group of my colleagues.  But I quickly discovered that Page One gives an unprecedented look at the inner workings of the Times’ legendary newsroom at a time in which the newspaper industry is experiencing incredible upheaval. Reports of once proud publications falling like dominoes were a monthly occurrence.

Photo courtesy of Travis S. on Flickr

Within minutes of  watching the film, my mind raced back three years to the summer that I left the news business. I was a broadcast journalist, not a print reporter. But those of us in TV battled the same demons that plagued the newspaper reporters with whom we rubbed shoulders every day. Thousands of  us nationwide were being let go too. Your status as a respected,  experienced or even award-winning journalist could not save you. Shrinking advertising dollars, increasing profit demands and an outdated business model eventually caught up to everyone. Unlike too many of my friends, I wasn’t laid off.  But, in a sense, I was pushed out. The demons were generating news content that I didn’t feel good about anymore. We were required to report more stories with fewer resources every day.  It seemed to me that the stories themselves were increasingly shallow, sensational and insufficient at addressing the community’s most critical issues. Even worse, advertisers were gaining a uncomfortable  influence over the way we covered the news.

Page One reminds me that even the midst of the industry’s most disturbing realities and my own disappointments about its direction,  many news organizations are still trying to be what I believe they’re supposed to be.  Talented journalists are still trying to report the important stories. They’re still trying to get the story right. They’re still trying to be thorough. They’re still trying to hold our leaders accountable. Now that my job is to convince journalists to cover the stories that truly matter to our society’s well being,  these reminders are reassuring.

Join our Page One Blog Party

Unlike the mythical “shot heard ‘round the world,” which began the American Revolution, the news revolution began quietly with a little thing called the Internet. The Internet has completely changed the way we consume news—and I do mean consume. We read, comment, Digg, tweet, retweet, retreat, or re-think based on what our friends have [...]]]>

Unlike the mythical “shot heard ‘round the world,” which began the American Revolution, the news revolution began quietly with a little thing called the Internet. The Internet has completely changed the way we consume news—and I do mean consume. We read, comment, Digg, tweet, retweet, retreat, or re-think based on what our friends have emailed to us or posted on their Facebook pages.

Page One: Inside the New York Times is a close look at how that media giant has dealt with these changes. It is a fascinating movie — and not only because I learned that reporters who I pitched stories to in days long passed now hold positions of power there. In fact, several lived in my rolodex for years. (Yeah, I wrote rolodex. Check your history books for it.)

Photo courtesy of Robert Scoble on Flickr

What apparently hasn’t changed during this media revolution are women’s roles and prominence in the newsroom. At the twice-daily editorial meetings, where the editors select what front page stories to run, I kept waiting for the camera to pan out to  show the rest of the women, besides Jill Abramson, seated at the table. Didn’t happen.

They did show several women packing their things in boxes after accepting early buy-outs during a large cutback. Bye-bye, women at the New York Times. There was also some in-depth coverage of former Times writer Judith Miller and her reporting that Saddam Hussein had weapons of  mass destruction. The stories turned out to be false, but many believe she fueled the fire for the Iraq War.

Overall, I felt the movie was great. It even made me think that paying for news content on the Internet might not be so bad after all. As it turns out, the Times is promoting Abramson to the Executive Editor position, the first female to ever hold that title. Is this the start of another chapter in the revolution?

Join our Page One Blog Party

There’s a very compelling scene in the film “Page One,” where Brian Stelter is chasing a story on WikiLeaks and its impact on journalism. Stelter calls WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for comment on their latest leak, a video of a U.S. air attack in Baghdad. The conversation that ensues reveals a great deal about [...]]]>

There’s a very compelling scene in the film “Page One,” where Brian Stelter is chasing a story on WikiLeaks and its impact on journalism. Stelter calls WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for comment on their latest leak, a video of a U.S. air attack in Baghdad. The conversation that ensues reveals a great deal about the evolving nature of journalism:

Photo courtesy of Adam Feuer on Flick

STELTER: There’s a traditional definition of journalism that is objective, never breaking the law to obtain content. Do you view yourself as trying to achieve that definition?

ASSANGE: Journalism is just a tool. We use a tool to get to the goal.

STELTER (interrupting): And tell me what the goal is.

ASSANGE: Broadly, our goal is justice.

This is a very important distinction. A free press is the cornerstone of a free and functioning democracy. However, WikiLeaks dances on that shrinking divide between journalism and activism. Fifty years ago,  print newspapers had the budget to hire full staffs with many well-trained investigative reporters, but with print journalism tanking, muckrakers have new standard bearers — WikiLeaks, ProPublica and blogs like Talking Points Memo. None of these websites fall in the traditional mold of investigative reporting.

WikiLeaks simply provides classified information to the public for their consumption, but offers no analysis; ProPublica is an independent, non-profit that produces investigative journalism for the public interest; and Talking Points Memo, despite its ambitious investigative reporting efforts, has a clear liberal agenda.

In “Page One” when Stelter is breaking the WikiLeaks story, his boss, the media desk editor Bruce Headlam, comments on this monumental moment, “Clearly it’s great for journalism in some ways because then it’s out there. It’s kind of this collision of two worlds — this closed, old world of expertise and classification, information and privacy, and this new world just wants to crack it all open.”

This new world is very scary for those of us, like myself, who clutch to our “gray lady” newspapers. For years, doomsayers have been predicting the death of print journalism as the end of investigative reporting. Tweets and opinion pieces are great, but lack substance, they say. While I fear the day that the Times publishes its last print issue (and I will see it in my lifetime), the success of WikiLeaks, ProPublica, and investigative blogs offer me hope that in-depth reporting can survive in this evolving media climate — investigative journalism just has to evolve, too.

Join our Page One Blog Party

Many stories about Jill Abramson’s historic appointment as the executive editor of the New York Times have focused on her gender. However, Abramson has another quality that may prove to be even more important and critical to the success of the Times: Web savvy.

Photo courtesy of ReservasdeCoches.com on Flickr

Now that the Times has launched [...]]]>

Many stories about Jill Abramson’s historic appointment as the executive editor of the New York Times have focused on her gender. However, Abramson has another quality that may prove to be even more important and critical to the success of the Times: Web savvy.

Photo courtesy of ReservasdeCoches.com on Flickr

Now that the Times has launched its paywall and rejected the increasingly popular belief that news should be free, it is no surprise that a changing of the guard was in order. By demanding that regular online readers pay for its content, the Times was drawing a clear line between its storytelling and the rest of the online news clatter. Will Abramson be able to navigate these uncharted online waters while ensuring that the Times remains the standard bearer for investigative reporting and non-fiction story-telling? Her writers think so.

Hours after the announcement, there was an outpouring of support from Times writers on Twitter. Jennifer Preston, the first social media editor in Times history, tweeted, “For all of you wondering about Jill Abramson and the Web? Jill gets it. And she’s fearless. We’re lucky.”

Back in 2010, Abramson temporarily stepped aside from her managing editor role to focus on digital operations and strategy. Bill Keller, then executive editor, said that they both thought that “one of us should really master the whole complicated machinery of an integrated newsroom,” and “Jill came up with the idea that one of us — i.e., her — should do a full immersion.”

Keller, often criticized  for being resistant to the digital revolution, elaborated:

“We really want this to be one newsroom, and it is part of the way there, not all of the way there. There is still a digital rhythm and a print rhythm, and they don’t feel synchronized.”

If Abramson’s goal is synchronization, she’s taking the right steps. Shortly after the announcement, the current Times social media editor tweeted that she had made a “Twitter date” with Abramson. With the inevitable decline of the newspaper industry looming, Abramson has her hands full, and a simple Twitter handle won’t save the Times.  However, I have faith that Abramson has the vision, experience and online training to throw the Gray Lady a lifeline.

As Preston said, “What’s most important is a commitment to devote resources and talent to innovation. That’s there.”

When USA Today launched in 1982, it heralded a new era for print journalism, featuring briefer articles and more colorful designs, photos and illustrations in newspapers. Twenty-eight years later, the second most widely read newspaper in the U.S. is changing the game again.

Recently, USA Today announced a reorganization of its newsroom, eliminating 130 jobs [...]]]>

When USA Today launched in 1982, it heralded a new era for print journalism, featuring briefer articles and more colorful designs, photos and illustrations in newspapers. Twenty-eight years later, the second most widely read newspaper in the U.S. is changing the game again.

Recently, USA Today announced a reorganization of its newsroom, eliminating 130 jobs and restructuring how the paper will cover the news. The reorganization will shift USA Today’s emphasis towards its digital media operations to capitalize on readers’ interest in online and mobile content, reflected in the decline of the paper’s print sales.

USA Today’s predicament is shared by other papers on today’s newsstand. Since hard economic times sped the descent of print and advertising sales of national, regional and community newspapers, publications such as the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Detroit News and Detroit Free Press, and Charlotte Observer are also exploring new business models.

However, these new content strategies should give communicators some cause for concern. USA Today described its new arrangement as “a new way of doing business that aligns sales efforts with the content we produce.” Such close collaboration between editorial and sales departments will change what news is covered and how, making it even more difficult for hard-sell social issue stories to get published.

In 2006, The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that with the advent of online news content and 24/7 TV news cycles, the public’s newspaper section preferences were changing. According to the study:

Nine-in-ten people (91%) who say they often or sometimes read a newspaper spend at least some time on news about their city, town or region, but 88% say the same about national news stories, and 84% spend time reading international news.

Three sections of the newspaper have grown significantly more popular since 1985: business and financial news, news about religion, and articles about food, diet and cooking.

The study also discovered that younger readers, under the age of 30, expressed little interest in newspaper editorials and opinion pages, 35 percent either skip the editorial pages entirely or 17 percent just glance at
them. Only 15 percent of 18-29 year old readers spend time reading the op-eds.

So what do Pew’s revealing findings mean?

The statistics reinforce USA Today’s conclusions: the way people receive their news is changing. Readers no longer need to rely on morning newspapers for yesterday’s news. Instant access to real-time news and opinion on the Internet means they can follow today’s news right now. Also, it indicates new business opportunities for advertisers who are promoting products related to those content areas.

As a result of this trend, newspapers are responding and taking steps like USA Today to reorganize and develop new ways to deliver the news and capitalize on new sales markets. These changes will make it harder for communicators to get soft news pitches in print. However where there is a will, there’s a way.  Just as newspaper publishers are discovering new ways to reengage readers, perhaps communicators should take heed, too, and find new ways for soft stories to be newsworthy…and marketable.

A scary afternoon in Washington, D.C. last week brought mental health back into the headlines. Earlier this year, I talked about the importance of using culturally and linguistically competent words, especially when talking about mental health. But in reviewing the coverage of the Discovery Channel hostage situation in Silver Spring, Maryland, it seems like [...]]]>

A scary afternoon in Washington, D.C. last week brought mental health back into the headlines. Earlier this year, I talked about the importance of using culturally and linguistically competent words, especially when talking about mental health. But in reviewing the coverage of the Discovery Channel hostage situation in Silver Spring, Maryland, it seems like reporters are still making disappointing word choices.

Following the incident, the American Psychological Association shared a great tip sheet for how to eliminate stigmatizing mental health language in news reporting. The tip sheet was developed by the University of Washington School of Social Work to help journalists improve reporting on mental health issues. One of its suggestions states:

As with any disparaging words related to race and ethnicity, some words should never be used in [mental health-related] reporting, commentary or headlines. Examples include: crazy/crazed, nuts, lunatic, deranged, psycho, and wacko.

Since some breaking news stories can be driven by comments and posts online, it’s not surprising that commonly used disparaging words are repeated in news stories about these incidents. But it is another reminder of how our word selection as communicators can have a powerful impact on the picture we paint of people and their challenges, especially when they are mental health-related.

Editors, producers, reporters and bloggers need to find ways to report the drama of the incident without using stereotypical words and phrases. “Crazy” is still making it into too many headlines and leads in reference to James Jay Lee.  That hinders the mental health community’s efforts to increase social inclusion for those dealing with mental illness and their loved ones.

On Wednesday, the Associated Press (AP) announced the appointment of former Jerusalem bureau chief Steve Gutkin as their new “Oil Spill Editor.” According to a memo sent to AP staff and released to the Poynter Institute:

The Gulf Oil spill has been an enormous journalistic challenge. A sprawling story, much of it occurring literally out [...]]]>

On Wednesday, the Associated Press (AP) announced the appointment of former Jerusalem bureau chief Steve Gutkin as their new “Oil Spill Editor.” According to a memo sent to AP staff and released to the Poynter Institute:

The Gulf Oil spill has been an enormous journalistic challenge. A sprawling story, much of it occurring literally out of sight beneath the water. Every day AP journalists in every format have risen to the story and kept us well ahead. It is now clear this story will be with us, and with the people of the Gulf Coast, for a good long time to come.

So we are taking steps to set up for this long haul. The first is the appointment today of an Oil Spill Editor to supervise the coverage and to keep us thinking of new and creative ways to cover this continuing and continually important story.

What does this say to communicators about how the news media is approaching the growing disaster in the Gulf?  Well,  if you’re pitching reporters about energy and/or environmental issues, you may need to take a number.

AP’s announcement illustrates that news outlets are expecting the oil spill coverage to continue for a very long time. Creating a dedicated editorial position to oversee content demonstrates their belief that the story will become bigger and more complicated as time goes on. Their decision also indicates that outlets are seeing such interest in the story from readers, viewers and listeners that they will invest in creating new roles and expanding coverage to meet that demand.

Satellite image of the Gulf Coast oil spill taken by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center on May 24, 2010, the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) on NASA’s Terra satellite captured this false-color, high-resolution view of the very tip of the Mississippi River Delta. Ribbons and patches of oil are silver against the light blue color of the adjacent water. Vegetation is red.

General Stanley McChrystal is in big, big trouble. In a profile of McChrystal appearing in Rolling Stone magazine, he’s on the record saying things about his boss (a.k.a. the President of the United States), Vice President Joe Biden and the administration’s management of the Afghanistan war that should never appear in print.  It was [...]]]>

General Stanley McChrystal is in big, big trouble. In a profile of McChrystal appearing in Rolling Stone magazine, he’s on the record saying things about his boss (a.k.a. the President of the United States), Vice President Joe Biden and the administration’s management of the Afghanistan war that should never appear in print.  It was a mistake that has now cost him his job.

Politics aside, many inside the Beltway and the Department of Defense are wondering how Rolling Stone freelancer Michael Hastings gained so much access and why a media veteran like McChrystal would allow it. The New York Times blog recently shed some light on the former and I think McChrystal’s comments in the Rolling Stone article offers an explanation for the latter.

President Barack Obama meets with Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, aboard Air Force One in Copenhagen, Denmark on Oct. 2, 2009. (Official White House photo by Pete Souza)

While we may never be in the national media cross-hairs like McChrystal, it’s good to have a refresher course of what to do during media interviews to maintain control and get the best outcome in resulting stories.

Here are some tips to help you stay in control in any interview situation (even if you’re a decorated four-star general):

1. Let your key message, or single overriding communication objective (SOCO), form the basis of the agenda that you want to get across in your interview.
2. If you don’t know the answer say so, but offer to get the information and then make an appropriate transition to your message point.
3. You can’t be quoted if you don’t say it. This principle would have served McChrystal well if he had used it in his Rolling Stone interview.
4. Correct any flawed information before answering the question. Silence is golden, but not in this situation. By failing to correct an inaccurate question, you are giving the reporter consent to include that misinformation in the story.
5. Keep answers short and simple. It will help you stick to your agenda and can improve accuracy of the reporting.
6. Don’t volunteer more information than the question requires. This is a tip that should also be extended to your staff who may have contact with the reporter as well before, during and/or after your interview.
7. If you make a mistake, stay calm, admit it and correct it promptly. There’s no guarantee that it won’t make it into the news story, but a good reporter will run your correction instead of your mistake.
8. Never answer for another organization. Getting one organization to comment on or criticize another is a frequently-used tactic by reporters to add drama and conflict to news stories. Avoid this slippery slope and remain focused on your own organization in interviews.

No communicator wants to be in the position that McChrystal is in right now. It’s easy to get carried away and say more than what you intended and the vast majority of the media are professionals who appreciate your willingness to participate and will be ethical and accurate during interviews. However, good reporters ask tough questions to get the whole story and in response, interviewees have a responsibility as their organization’s spokesperson to stay on message and in control during interviews.  These tips can help prepare people to be spokespersons.

From coverage of Cornell University’s response to six students’ deaths by suicide to reports of entertainer Marie Osmond’s teenage son’s death by suicide, recently reporters are writing and talking a lot about suicide.

While it’s great that news coverage is driving public dialogue about this often taboo topic, the news coverage does not utilize linguistically [...]]]>

From coverage of Cornell University’s response to six students’ deaths by suicide to reports of entertainer Marie Osmond’s teenage son’s death by suicide, recently reporters are writing and talking a lot about suicide.

While it’s great that news coverage is driving public dialogue about this often taboo topic, the news coverage does not utilize linguistically competent language regarding suicide.  As a result, it could hinder groups trying to support and help those impacted by these deaths.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/skender/ / CC BY 2.0

In response to this suicide news story trend, Alicia Sparks – on her Celebrity Psychings blog – discussed how media can responsibly report on suicide. For example, instead of saying someone “committed suicide,” mental health consumers and leaders prefer to say someone “died by suicide” instead. The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, American Association of Suicidology and Annenberg Public Policy Center provide tips to reporters on how to report on suicide without inadvertently encouraging  copycat actions.  Their research shows that the way suicide deaths are reported can impact whether suicide contagions occur or not. Word and phrase selection can be very influential. Overly dramatic headlines like “Do Cornell’s Gorges Make Kids Commit Suicide?” or “Does 6 deaths in 6 months make Cornell ‘suicide school’?” could hinder Cornell’s suicide prevention efforts.

Suicide is not the only mental health challenge or health-related issue to fall victim to the media’s inflammatory or linguistically incompetent phrasing. It’s not uncommon for reporters to say that someone is “schizophrenic” instead of “has schizophrenia.” Similar to how we speak about cancer, the medical illness, disorder or condition should not be an adjective describing people, but should be phrased as “has cancer,” instead of “is cancerous.”

While the media has been reporting about AIDS/HIV for more than 25 years, they still refer to people living with AIDS/HIV as “is HIV-positive” or “has AIDS,” not acknowledging how medical advances allow people to “live” with the disease as opposed to it being a death sentence.

As health communicators, we must make sure that our media materials use linguistic and culturally competent words and phrases to help the media start stories on the right foot. Competency in our communication can’t be limited to just being “politically correct.”  Instead, we must acknowledge the power (and influence) word selection has in impacting behavior change and engaging (and persuading) key audiences.

Last year, I drafted a media advisory referencing suicide and witnessed the power of words. Familiar with how suicide is discussed within the mental health community, I chose to use “died by suicide” in the media advisory. When the advisory was reviewed by one of the people highlighted in it, I received this email in response:

Bravo! Appreciate the use of “died by suicide” rather than committed suicide as a person who is surviving a sister’s death by suicide in 1995 and as a suicide attempt survivor. It’s language that brings dignity to families, friends and those of us who have struggled to survive and recover.

British politician Pearl Strachan Hurd once said, “Handle them carefully, for words have more power than atom bombs.”  We want our words as communicators — and those of the media — to not only inform and persuade, but also offer dignity and respect to sensitive, intimate stories and lives we report in our materials and news outlets.