A map of the Washoe Fire created by Bryce Leinan.

Society is increasingly entangled online, which means we are frequently connecting with one another in ways we would not have done in person prior to the Internet.

It’s clear that online social media have transformed societies in recent years; anyone who’s been paying attention to news coverage has noticed how online media is frequently driven by citizens.

The recent Washoe Drive Fire in Reno drove this point home for Washoe County residents. Arguably, the most popular sources of information were TV news and social networks. (A serious nod goes to KOLO/Channel 8 for its ongoing coverage running live for hours and responding directly to citizens on air from their social networks.) Courtesy of the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, the #washoefire hashtag on Twitter exploded much like the fire did in real life.

While RGJ.com had coverage with quality multimedia, it was frequently late to the game in getting out information. At any given moment during the fire RGJ.com showed “Updates” and “Breaking News” that were often a half hour old or more – even though news was literally breaking by the minute. In addition, we at ThisisReno were linking to their website content before they were posting to their own social networks.

The point is that news agencies treat news and information as one and the same: proprietary. They frequently pretend as if other news outlets don’t exist. It’s a necessary part of being a competitive business enterprise.

Read the rest of this post at This Is Reno.

CHAPTER 2, PART 8  of 8

From Spin! How the News Media Misinform and Why Consumers Misunderstand, by Bob Conrad, Ph.D.

Now available at Amazon in paperback, Smashwords and for the Kindle. Get a free review copy by emailing me.

Read Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

Oversight, or not

Given the significant potential for misinformation by unknowledgeable gatekeepers, and the increasing inability to check facts, it would seem that, as with most other types of organizations, an external level of accountability over newsrooms would be beneficial.

Those of us who work in government are used to high levels of oversight to ensure accountability. It’s an imperfect system, one that can increase bureaucracy and inefficiencies. Yet imagine the outcry if government entities were to run themselves the same way newsrooms self-correct errors, if they do.

Granted, these two types of systems are radically different, and a comparison between government entities and newsrooms is unfair. At the same time, there’s something to be said for systems of accountability in which others exercise control over operations in order to ensure we are not, at the end of the day, kidding ourselves.

The absence of formal oversight over news media is both essential and problematic. The media need the right to be wrong in order to ultimately ensure a free press. The long-standing American history of the relatively free, uncensored press is practically set in stone and for good reason. The news must be free if in fact the public is to be informed. This freedom, though, also guarantees the right to be wrong.

This means that First Amendment freedoms come with a price. For the news media, freedom of the press means different things to different people. Many reporters assume such freedom automatically removes them from any role other than that of information disseminator – unless, of course, that role has managed to influence a policy change of some sort. Then the news role becomes something to be championed. (News outlets frequently boast of their own press awards, which almost always receive mention on their editorial pages and beyond, especially, for example, when a major policy change occurred or somebody ended up in jail, as a result of their reporting.)

Why reporters purposefully adopt such an unassuming stance is puzzling to those of us outside newsrooms, particularly if we are also on the receiving end of negative stories. An examination is therefore needed into what actually goes on in the journalist’s mind when he or she is reporting – and how audiences interpret news reports.

Read Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

Now available at Amazon in paperback, Smashwords and for the Kindle. Get a free review copy by emailing me.

Read Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 

Chapter 2, part 7 of 8

Increased inaccuracies and mistrust

Despite the increasing influence of citizen journalists, mistrust of news continues to grow rapidly. The Pew Research Center (www.people-press.org) released in 2009 its annual report examining public evaluations of the news media. The subtitle of the Pew’s news release at the time: “Press accuracy rating hits two-decade low.”

Pew’s 2011 report had similar findings. Even though citizens view news organizations as more credible than government and business, “negative opinions about the performance of news organizations now equal or surpass all-time highs on nine of 12 core measures the Pew Research Center has been tracking since 1985.”

The reason for this new low is, in part, because reporters do not have adequate systems in place to ensure accuracy or fairness. Instead, it is up to bloggers, researchers and, sometimes, other media to analyze and report contextual errors, furthering the power of information shapers outside of the traditional newsroom.

Nothing illustrates this better than how the press report on complex information, such as scientific issues. Others are often left to correct serious errors or omissions committed within news reports about scientific issues. Research about the news media explains why these errors occur.

In 2000, two researchers from Texas A&M University conducted a study of 88 journalists from 62 of the largest U.S. newspapers. One of the study’s findings, by Tom Vestal and Gary Briers, was that journalists’ knowledge of biotechnology was lower than their perceived knowledge of the field. In short, the reporters and editors who participated believed they knew more about biotechnology than they actually did.

Other studies may explain why reporters have such views of their own knowledge. Agricultural communications research has delved into reporter accuracy about agricultural issues – from normal farm practices to biotechnology – to understand journalists’ knowledge and beliefs.

One study surveyed Arkansas newspaper editors. It found that they had no formal agricultural training or background, yet they were charged with determining if agricultural news was indeed newsworthy.

Another study found that negative newspaper coverage of Oklahoma swine production was written by reporters who did not have an agricultural background.

In another study, examining The Associated Press news between 1997-2000, found that less than one-half of the statements made in agricultural news articles contained sentences with verifiable facts.

Finally, in an analysis of organic food news media coverage, researchers found that news media generally frame organic agriculture positively. They wrote: “… the positive attitudes toward organic agriculture are already in place, even if they may be based on marginal scientific evidence.”

More recently, a CNN report glowingly covered a supposed clean-energy technology that had elsewhere been debunked, without any pretense of fact checking.

When reporters report on issues for which they have little knowledge, they often lack the awareness to ask the most important questions, and they tend to choose sources that may or may not have the necessary expertise about the topic being covered.

In addition, as newsrooms have been downsized, the ability for reporters and editors to take time to adequately fact-check stories has also diminished, especially when it comes to scientific or complex issues, including medicine, health, law and government policies.

Read Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

CHAPTER 2, PART 6  of 8

From Spin! How the News Media Misinform and Why Consumers Misunderstand, by Bob Conrad, Ph.D.

Now available at Amazon in paperback, Smashwords and for the Kindle. Get a free review copy by emailing me.

Read Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

The historical influence of citizen journalists was maintained in the vibrant independent press. Ben Franklin is one example, as was the long-standing publication I.F. Stones’ Weekly, called a “journalistic triumph of the 20th century.”

According to a Stone biographer, Myrsa MacPherson, “Stone went from a young iconoclast in the 1930s to an icon during the Vietnam War. In the fifties, he spoke to mere handfuls who dared surface to protest Cold War loyalty oaths and witch hunts. A decade later, he spoke to half a million who massed for anti-Vietnam War rallies. He became world famous.”

Stone, however, was an aberration in terms of popularity. The underground press grew and waned in popularity in certain periods of history, such as the sixties, but it was generally more easily ignored as circulation numbers frequently could not compete with mainstream media.

The so-called ‘zine revolution of the 1990s, in which personal computers, desktop publishing software and Kinko’s enabled anyone to publish (maga)zines, was popularized in the mainstream press, for example. This revolution was but a spark of what was to come.

Now, bloggers and citizens regularly break news – via text messages, posts, tweets and instantly uploaded photographs and video – to the point that citizens are frequently the most critical witnesses to historic events.

When the news media are honest, they credit their citizen sources and may even link back to them online. The role of the press has therefore been irreversibly changed.

Is it possible then, that news media watchdoggery now signifies an inflated sense of self-importance based on the historic significance of journalism in society rather than on a true reflection of the press’ current role? Some signs are pointing toward answering this question with a “yes.”

Read Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

I am posting the introduction and first two chapters of my new book over the next few weeks.

The book is available for pre-order at Amazon. I am also giving away a limited number of advance, review copies to those willing to review it on Amazon, or on news sites or blogs, prior to the release date of Jan. 3, 2012. Email me for details.

CHAPTER 2, PART 5 of 8

Now available at Amazon in paperback, Smashwords and for the Kindle. Get a free review copy by emailing me.

Read Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

Part of the problem with the press is that as self-appointed “watchdogs,” journalists often believe that they are the most capable people to fulfill the role of society’s protectors – protecting us from ourselves.

It’s an embedded perspective, one with history and evidence to back it up. The First Amendment essentially guarantees the right to a free press. As societies become more democratic, the press, playing the role of watchdogs, influence government transparency. There is a symbiotic relationship: freer societies have freer presses, which in turn keep government in check.

However, technological advances have begun to alter this dynamic.

The watchdog role can belong to anyone with the means to transmit information about, say, corporate malfeasance. Media members fall into a historically protected structure with a typically guaranteed large audience, via television, print newspapers, news magazines and weeklies.

Today, citizen journalists are increasingly the news breakers. They document breaking news simply because they are where news happens, and they have the technology to transmit information to potentially global audiences via social networks.

Historically, the freedom of the press was mostly guaranteed to those who owned one. Now virtually anyone can share information online. As a result, the role of protected media is diminishing. Citizens now have more power to shape and influence news, and citizens who appoint themselves as journalists are receiving the same protections as traditional journalists. In 2009, for example, the New York Police Department issued press credentials to three bloggers who had sued New York City when they were originally denied credentials.

More and more, citizen journalists benefit from the same legal protections as news journalists. Jason Chen, writer for the popular technology website Gizmodo, bought a secret iPhone prototype and counteracted a claim that he was in possession of the phone illegally. Chen’s home was raided by law enforcement and his computer equipment seized after he published photographs of the phone online.

In the end, California shield laws and the First Amendment essentially kept Chen from facing prosecution for buying the phone from the two people who originally found it, after it was accidentally left in a bar by an Apple employee. Chen’s rationale for buying the phone: it was part of a journalistic investigation. This defense kept him from facing further prosecution.

Now available at Amazon in paperback, Smashwords and for the Kindle. Get a free review copy by emailing me.

Read Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

I am posting the introduction and first two chapters of my new book over the next few weeks.

The book is available for pre-order at Amazon. I am also giving away a limited number of advance, review copies to those willing to review it on Amazon, or on news sites or blogs, prior to the release date of Jan. 3, 2012. Just email me for details.

CHAPTER 1, PART 4

Now available at Amazon in paperback, Smashwords and for the Kindle. Get a free review copy by emailing me.

Read Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

The American Left’s favorite punching bag, Sarah Palin, should be thanked for one thing: her ability to draw out the nastiness of her media critics. Palin’s shortcomings, which are many, help elicit inherent problems with news media reporting that might otherwise go unnoticed.

There’s something about Palin that emboldens news media to seemingly go out of the way to misconstrue news about her or to simply create a kind of context that might not otherwise exist. Palin makes a good target, one that media quickly and somewhat cavalierly defend their actions against, after going on the attack.

This is not necessarily referring to left- or right-wing bias in the media, however. Even though a study by UCLA political scientist Tim Groseclose, published in the December 2005 issue of Quarterly Journal of Economics, found that major news media are moderate but have a measurable lean to the left, the bias against Palin and many other public figures is, by most appearances, inherent in the news journalism business.

It is, in fact, business-as-usual news reporting that is flawed and is too often seemingly incapable of portraying a complete context for what happens in real life. It is not just partisan news that is problematic: the news business in general that is fraught with the potential to drive innuendo and encourage misinformation – a point made repeatedly in Lanny Davis’ book Truth to Tell, about when he worked under then President Bill Clinton and witnessed stories driven by mere allegation even when facts were absent.

Palin and many public figures know this too well. What is most striking about her appearance on the cover of Newsweek magazine in 2009 – in which she is portrayed in a runner’s outfit with the bold question: “How do you solve a problem like Sarah Palin?” – is the defense by Newsweek to justify context creation, despite the potential illegalities of reproducing that particular photo in the first place. The photograph was originally shot for Runner’s World magazine and used by Newsweek without permission, according to a statement posted by Runner’s World on its website.

Newsweek insisted that its choice of cover photographs was appropriate. Newsweek’s then Editor Jon Meacham, after coming under fire for the use of the photograph, said: “We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do.”

Which is why what constitutes news is often deceptive. It routinely (re)defines context and frames agendas for us rather than taking a stricter stance of merely reporting information. It is an attitude in which reporters deem – influenced likely by their training in journalism schools – that they are qualified to shape context.

Meacham, like many journalists, is cavalier as an interpreter of information. The processes of reporting and interpreting news put reporters in the position of making decisions about news for the presumed benefit of their audiences.

David Barker, staff writer for the State News, a newspaper published by the students of Michigan State University, explained the reporting process this way: “As reporters, we aren’t simply people who regurgitate facts. We gather information and test its veracity. Our job requires that we interpret and shape information – contextually and factually – for the reader.

“Our job is to tell stories, to make facts relevant, but never to skew them.”

But the process of interpreting and shaping information is precisely what begins the progression of skewing information, deliberately or otherwise. Barker basically admitted to this. His lead sentence in a column from 2009, stated: “This just in: News is not objective.” But he attempted to soften the reporting reality by denying that interpretation has the potential to skew. He wrote:

“We have a code of ethics because our jobs require us to decide not only what is essential, but pertinent.

“After that, it’s up to the reader to decide.”

Inserting oneself into the position of deciding what’s relevant is the first place where bias initially occurs. Scientists know this, which is why double-blind studies are so critical to research; indeed, human health and safety are dependent upon blind studies for medicine so that lives will be saved. Double-blind studies are when even the researchers are unaware of which group is getting an actual treatment versus a fake treatment, or a placebo. By taking themselves out of the equation, or blinding themselves to variables of what they are researching, scientists reduce their potential for bias.

Reporters on the other hand are critical components in the filtering process, such as deciding what is newsworthy. Barker, at least, was refreshingly honest about his role as a journalist.

His colleagues, however, seem too often to lack this characteristic.

Such is the case with the process of attempting to correct news, let alone context. Media personnel have an essentially black-and-white moral obligation of speaking for the masses with a frequent disregard for their own accountability in fulfilling the role of watchdog. This is most evident when they commit errors in their reporting.

It may be possible to get factual mistakes corrected in the news, usually a day or two later. The correction, however, is given with far less prominence than the original news story. Even then, the corrections are sometimes questionable, as the site Regret the Error (www.regrettheerror.com), which documents news errors and corrections, frequently points out.

What happens when context is incorrect or distorted? Not much. Reporters and editors are typically quick to respond defensively when called onto the carpet for miscontextualizations, as the Newsweek / Palin example shows.

Read Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

I am posting the introduction and first two chapters of my new book over the next few weeks.

The book is available for pre-order at Amazon. I am also giving away a limited number of advance, review copies to those willing to review it on Amazon, or on news sites or blogs, prior to the release date of Jan. 3, 2012. Just email me for details.

INTRODUCTION, PART 3

Now available at Amazon in paperback, Smashwords and for the Kindle. Get a free review copy by emailing me.

Read Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

In this book, I make the case that reporters and editors are the creators of “spin,” despite claims or assumptions of objectivity and fairness. News outlets, news magazines in particular, “long ago realized their job is to interpret the news, not to report it,” as one commenter on my blog explained. This perspective is used as justification for context revision, and to me, this is reason for concern. Interpretation can too often lead to misconstruing and even fabricating news, especially if the reporter does not adequately understand the issues on which he or she is reporting.

Journalists are meant to strive toward objectivity, but the process of news reporting – contrary to claims by many journalists – rather than being designed to enhance objectivity, is prone to bias. The previously mentioned he-said/she-said fallacy is one example. This book examines in detail many more.

Undoubtedly, one complaint this book will receive is going to be of the ad hominem variety: “Well, aren’t you a professional spin doctor?” Or the straw man question: “Why don’t you criticize spin by the likes of corporate PR defenders?” While such questions are irrelevant to the intention of this book, these points deserve to be addressed.

Public relations personnel are employed to promote and defend their clients and organizations. I believe PR professionals should also strive to be objective in their roles. By adopting a holistic view, and by candidly providing to clients and employers the perceptions people outside of the organization have of their company, public relations counselors can actually play a pre-emptive role for clients and employers. This perspective may help mitigate potentially negative press coverage and prevent or minimize crisis events.

That said, it is critical to note that PR has a defined role for an organization, so bias is inherent in that position. The distinction between news reporting and public relations advocacy (advocacy that is included in the Public Relations Society of America’s code of ethics) is obvious. When done ineptly, PR fiascoes tend to receive swift news coverage, frequently negative, to the point of regularity. Poorly conveyed and unethical PR imbroglios could fill multiple volumes.

What is much less obvious is how news reporters and editors spin news. That is what this book explores.

Read Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

I am posting the introduction and first two 

The book is available for pre-order at Amazon. I am also giving away a limited number of advance, review copies to those willing to review it on Amazon, or on news sites or blogs, prior to the release date of Jan. 3, 2012. Just email me for details.

INTRODUCTION

From Spin! How the News Media Misinform and Why Consumers Misunderstand, by Bob Conrad, Ph.D.

Now available at Amazon in paperback, Smashwords and for the Kindle. Get a free review copy by emailing me.

Read Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

In 2003, I wrote a research paper for a doctoral seminar in educational leadership. In it I explored why academic personnel face challenges communicating complex information, such as scientific research, to the public. I was working at the time as a marketing communications professional at the University of Nevada, Reno. My job was to help promote the science and news coming out of the University’s College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources. I experienced those communications challenges firsthand, and I wanted to better understand why the obstacles exist.

My research explored academic disciplines as diverse as science communications, social psychology, media studies and behavioral economics.

What I found took me by surprise.

It was obvious that I, as a public relations professional, had a bias – to promote science news. What I did not expect to see was how reporters also mold news – but in a different way, a way that demeaned the facts of the science being reported. As an undergraduate journalism student in the early 1990s, I had always been taught that accuracy and context were top priorities in news reporting, but research showed how both get blurred to the point of journalists actually being the purveyors of misinformation, intentionally or not.

Let me illustrate what I mean. If a scientist is granted a multimillion-dollar award to study drought tolerance for crop plants in arid countries, the scientific community would likely consider this good news. However, this news can suddenly be devalued the minute the news media seek an alternate perspective to the research. Frequently, news reporters will approach activist and advocacy organizations for comment about myriad topics. In the case of genetic modification of crop plants, anti-biotechnology activists are frequently quoted in the press.

This alternate perspective may or may not have the reader’s interests in mind. It may not have society’s interests in mind. It may skew facts in all sorts of creative ways. It may even flat-out lie. But if the reporter has sought out this other perspective, then he or she has technically presented what is assumed to be both sides of the story. The news story objective, then, is technically complete.

Contrasting science with an advocacy perspective is problematic, though. While science is ever-evolving, and subject to change as new discoveries are made, the science of genetic modification, in this case, is not controversial among these researchers. Plant biotechnologists view their work as far more precise, and therefore safer to humans, than what plant breeders have been doing for thousands of years.

Among the less-informed public, however, biotechnology tends to be viewed as controversial. It is not uncommon for something like Round-up Ready alfalfa, a genetically modified plant that is resistant to the herbicide Roundup, to be treated with suspicion. On the other hand, consumption of modern wheat, even if organic, is widespread among humans. Yet domestic wheat began to be genetically altered by early farmers more than 10,000 years ago.

To present an antithetical view of biotechnology by non-scientists, then, creates a false dichotomy. Our entire food production system has flourished because of historic and clumsy genetic modification, but modern genetic modification by food conglomerates and scientists is still viewed with skepticism. Meanwhile, organic foods are viewed more favorably in the press despite no verifiable health benefits from eating organics. In general, journalists have reported on biotechnology by presenting a scientific view and contrasting it with anti-biotechnology advocacy perspectives.

Journalism scholar Jay Rosen calls this “he-said/she-said” journalism. He says that this reporting “is not so much a truth-telling strategy as refuge-seeking behavior that fits well into newsroom production demands.”

Author and science writer, Chris Mooney, devoted an entire article to this topic in the November/December, 2004 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review. It was called “Blinded by Science: How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality.”

The “Making Light” blog, written by Teresa and Patrick Nielsen Hayden, simply calls the he-said/she-said reporting process a “regression toward a phony mean.”

Despite what it’s called, this practice of always providing two competing perspectives – one of which is often in support of an advocacy agenda – can paint a distorted portrait of reality. Research shows that audiences tend to believe contrary information over credible, science-based information when the two are presented side-by-side. It would seem that the process of doing so is actually counter to the aims of quality journalism.

In short, the he-said/she-said fallacy is a staple of the news we consume each day. Rather than enlighten the public, it actually serves to misinform.

Read Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

Blog coverage concept map of Duke University's lacrosse team scandal

Traditional news versus social media: What’s different?

Picking a dissertation topic is not for the faint of heart or the unprepared. Narrowing an issue into components and sub-components involves, first, picking a topic, then exploring what others have researched in that area and, finally, finding your own niche.

Crisis communications, social media and higher-education leadership were my interest areas, and it literally took years to find a topic that I could research in a way that would be relevant and would cover each of these topics.

My doctoral studies in educational leadership at the University of Nevada, Reno, covered organizational theory, leadership issues and administrative challenges, meaning research possibilities were endless. Most coursework took place in the mid-2000s, a time when social media was coming into fruition. Four events in higher-education news also dominated that time period, which provided an opportunity to build a dissertation.

Read the rest of this post at PR Conversations, an international website devoted to discussing current issues in public relations.