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

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 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 2

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

My subsequent research paper, titled “Ingredients for Misinformation: A look at the Barriers Between Scientific Knowledge and Public Perception,” was presented at the Educator’s Academy for the Public Relations Society of America’s 2006 Conference. During the presentation, one astute public relations professor did not appear happy with my research – especially when I suggested journalism students be required to take courses in statistics and research.

She asked: “What is your bias?”

Regretfully, I did not have a good answer at the time. I had not even considered that question, now so obvious given the topic at hand. My biases should be acknowledged, though, so here is how I consume information.

In my position as the public information officer for Nevada’s Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, my news sources are diverse. This is something I consider a requirement for a more complete news perspective. Every possible Nevada news media outlet is in my Google Reader, and I receive daily Google Alerts from news sites, blogs and websites mentioning search terms related to our department. This process allows me to then post on our Facebook and Twitter accounts news relevant to what we do. By receiving information from potentially unlimited sources, I am able to see what information producers of all stripes are saying about us.

I usually do not take a position on the coverage being either positive or negative. Stories that might reflect negatively on the department’s agencies have as much luck being reposted by me as do positive stories. Since much of what we do is by nature controversial, I believe that pointing to positive, negative and neutral information shows that we do not shy away from any relevant press coverage, something I recommend of all organizations. If a news report is misleading or inaccurate, reposting it also gives us the opportunity to quickly and publicly respond to our followers; something I occasionally find necessary.

When I consume general Nevada news, I peruse the state’s three main newspapers online daily, if not multiple times a day. If I read a story in the Reno Gazette-Journal, I will also read the versions in the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Las Vegas Sun, the latter two being my favorite Nevada news websites.

I rarely watch national television news and I do not receive cable news. I find television news in general to be too sensationalist and superficial (especially the cable networks), and the reception where I live is not good enough to view local news. If something on television news is of interest, I will watch it online.

For general news, my outlet of choice is National Public Radio. NPR programs cover science and worldly topics with a depth and consistency not found in other media. While I believe NPR to have a political leaning to the left – most noticeable by its lack of right-leaning commentators – I find that it does not shy away from topics due to political bent, and it seems to present non-fringe perspectives fairly. To me it’s one of the few media outlets striving to be both worldly and thoughtful while remaining easily accessible.

That’s not to say NPR is perfect. I take issue with the repetitive use of its own and other journalists as sources for many stories, rather than turning to subject-matter experts related to the topics being covered. There is also a tendency by some news hosts to interject opinions unnecessarily. In order to counter these tendencies, I value NPR’s story follow-ups, where it freely admits goofs and airs listeners’ counter perspectives. Nevertheless, I listen to the radio skeptically.

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.

There is now ample evidence

• James Donnelly’s post last week questioned who benefits from the Toyota debacle. Journalists, and, likely, trial lawyers, he said.
• Newsweek’s Ed Wallace told us last week that the news media owe Toyota an apology. (Wallace was scooped in his sentiment by Michael Fumento back in March, 2010, and again in August.)
• Eric Denzenhall used Toyota to illustrate a dynamic he’s built a career upon – public attacks on corporations. (My favorite quote: “The same proliferation of media that has abetted crisis capitalists also provides an opportunity for fighting back. Just don’t expect high fives at your neighborhood barbecue for defending poor, misunderstood multinational corporations.”)
• Crisisblogger Gerald Baron used his post about Toyota’s exoneration to ask: “Would major media actually lie just to juice a story?”

The answer is, of course, yes they would. It happens all the time. In recent years misdeeds by media personnel that I’ve witnessed include the following:

1. A reporter telling my boss that I lied to my boss about something the reporter did, in fact, say.
2. A newspaper printing an expose with dozens of errors. When corrections ran, most all the corrections were also incorrect.
3. A reporter wrote in a story that I could not be reached for comment. His story was posted a mere 20 minutes after he left a message on my office phone – even though I have an outgoing message on my voicemail instructing media personnel to call my cell phone if I do not answer. (The reporter retracted the statement after I bitched him out.)
4. A publication printed an article and attributed it to a colleague who had posted the article on an online forum. He posted the column with a statement as to the column’s source, an indication that he was not in fact the column’s author. The news publication, however, took out the statement indicating the source and put his name on it instead and printed it — without permission. He demanded a retraction in the next issue, never received one nor did he receive a response to his email.
5. Another reporter belligerently yelled at a colleague and suggested we were covering up an incident he was investigating because it took multiple personnel and some time to find a 20-year-old file. His subsequent news coverage and published documentation left out important information to the story, which we in turn had to post on our own website. The news outlet then changed parts of its reporting and its online documentation, without noting the fact that they had made changes, after we outed them for their sleazy maneuvering.
6. Lastly, another local reporter claimed our agency “approved (a) dump” when the news release he received clearly stated our agency’s approval was for one of two needed permits. The reporter then told me he failed to see what he needed to correct in his statement.

Yes, Gerald, this happens all the time. My examples are only from Nevada news media, and each reporter involved is an award-winning journalist who, in most cases, has publicly advocated for honesty, transparency and has asserted the nobility of their chosen profession to some degree.

News media scumbaggery aside, though, the PR pundits have, by and large remained silent about Toyota. Last month’s issue of PRSA’s TACTICS even recited disproven claims against Toyota, also implying mismanagement and death caused by the company.

The simple reason why is that people still accept to a significant degree what news media report at face value. Despite the news media being among the least credible of sources for information, we collectively assume what we read, hear and consume to have some element of truth.

A series in 2009 – about the news media as critical components to spin and misinformation – outlined the process, both procedural and cognitive, of how and why consumers misunderstand news, as well as why media personnel frequently get things wrong.

Besides lack of editorial resources and the increasing absence of fact checking, one issue not focused upon in the series was the false sense of empowerment some reporters feel merely by being reporters. Each of those ingredients seem to be at play with Toyota news coverage. As spokespersons for “the people,” it was easy to glom onto cheap criticism, innuendo and unsubstantiated allegation. The Toyota reporting had all the makings of a good scandal for which journalists clamor. The problem was that, even early on, reporters refused to let facts get in the way of their reporting.

There is a plus side to all this. The saving grace is that the same social technologies that give rise to misinformation can also help to counter it. Now more than ever, even among my more timid PR colleagues, people and organizations are fighting back against media-enabled misinformation.

Despite the damage to Toyota’s reputation, one lesson learned is that is also pays to fight back in the face of misinformation and unjustified attacks – especially when driven by the news media.

The social nature of today’s media inherently means misinformation will potentially spread like wildfire. If based on deliberate deception, however, antagonists should heed warnings associated with the new age of transparency.

Edited 2011/02/17 for grammar and style.

Sooner or later a case like this will win. It’s just a matter of time. It’s always tough when you do a new thing, but this case will not be new five years from now. Everyone will know then that music like Judas Priest’s causes violence and death among young people.

– Reno attorney Ken McKenna, 1990

Arizona has been considered a progressive state because it provides the vast majority of mental health services through cost-effective outpatient community programs. By slashing these programs, experts say the state will force more people to use emergency rooms or end up in the criminal justice system, which will cost the state more.

– Christine Vestal, Stateline, July 19, 2010

It occurs like clockwork. After mass gun slayings in America, discussion immediately turns toward proximate causes.

Kip Kinkel’s shootings were attributed to news coverage of other school shootings, Shakespeare and Marilyn Manson. Post-Columbine, Marilyn Manson and violent video games were criticized. And after Virginia Tech, the video game “Counter Strike” was blamed. (Although Seung-Hui Cho likened himself to Jesus, there weren’t many who publicly blamed religion for his acts.)

As cause-seeking beings, humans engage in inherently fallacious thought, especially in the height of the moment, so attributing gun violence to any single cause, however abstract, is bound to fail both in the court of public opinion and the court of law.

Read the rest at This Is Reno…

The Shoe Tree near Middlegate on Highway 50. Photo courtesy of the Nevada Commission on Tourism.

It’s 8 a.m. Monday. I get a Facebook message from a friend:

“Bob, I heard the Shoe Tree was felled and didn’t want to react until I could confirm. I checked This Is Reno and RGJ.com over the weekend and didn’t see a report. Do you know if this is urban legend?”

I couldn’t remember at first what the shoe tree was. Sure enough, it’s the tree near Middlegate, Nevada I had driven by dozens of times heading east that has, over time, accumulated an assortment of shoes by travelers tossing them into the tree’s limbs. The Nevada Commission on Tourism explains the tree’s history here.

Sure enough, a Facebook search revealed a page devoted to the fact that the tree had been cut down before New Year’s Eve. And sure enough, no media had covered it yet.

This Is Reno got the scoop on the story by merely linking to the first known photo of the felled tree, which was posted on Facebook. We followed up later in the day with official statements from Fallon’s tourism spokesperson, courtesy of AbbiPR. (I was on furlough and out spending time with my dad, so Bethany Drysdale took the lead and wrote the follow-up story.)

The first official media outlet to cover the tree being vandalized was News Channel 2, about three hours after our post. The Johnny-come-latelys included the local daily — which at first only ran the AP story, and that was a day later — the local weekly, the rest of the local TV news stations and other broadcast outlets.

After the AP picked up the story, it spread nationally like wildfire. According to my dad, it was sixth of the eight stories on Yahoo’s “Today’s Highlights” yesterday. Outlets such as the Washington Post covered it and the story has to date received mentions in more than 265 news articles, according to a Google News search.

This all made possible first by citizens, and, second, by the social nature of the Web.

Although This Is Reno only received (much appreciated) link-backs from readers and bloggers, and not one word of credit was given to being the first news site to break the story, the story remains among the most popular on This Is Reno this week.

The reason why is because a site such as This Is Reno embraces the social aspect of the Internet; conversely, many mainstream news outlets struggle with sharing links to original sources, giving credit to non-official news sources and, in general, spotting – as opposed to following – trends and potential news stories that break in social networks.

This kind of news — driven by hindsight bias, a mob mentality, the reliance on the same old sources and the perspective that only the news professionals are qualified to ask questions — will forever be behind the curve primarily because the Internet has welcomed information sharing while media outlets still operate under the illusion that such information can be owned and controlled.

The upside is that it opens the doors for niche new outlets like This Is Reno to flourish. The old minds of journalism make this possible.

The secret to scooping them is not really a secret at all. It’s merely a matter of reading your Facebook messages, having a place to share potential news and crediting original sources regardless of who they are.

Year four

As always, this blog is committed to shooting through hype and moral plays in both the PR and news journalism worlds to put forward perspectives frequently not addressed anywhere else.

What would you like to see here in 2011? Reviews of books or products? Media criticism? PR criticism? Research-based analysis? Political and policy issues? Please post a comment below, or send me an email.

Here are the top five, most viewed posts from 2010. Have a great new year, and be sure to ‘like’ this site on Facebook!

1. Brand Crisis: 10 crisis response myths
2. The coming meltdown in Seth Godin’s uninformed commentary
3. PRSA’s APR problem revisited
4. The value of negative publicity and PRSA’s response
5. BP, catastrophe communications and the human condition

What it was, was an enforced policy by NPR to adhere to a journalistic standard. Williams had previously offered commentary on Fox. He had been warned and this was the last straw. NPR’s CEO said yesterday: “Despite many conversations and warnings over the years, Juan has continued to violate this principal (of withholding personal commentary).”

NPR’s reaction to Williams was just after a memo sent to NPR staff warning them about attending political rallies, after which NPR was erroneously accused of political bias. NPR rightfully clarified this situation with a public story about its internal memo, which NPR’s ombudsman said was poorly worded.

What Williams said this week was a repeated offense. Williams’ intellect and otherwise generally good sense should have known how his comments would be perceived. He knew better.

Where NPR crossed the line was with comments by NPR CEO Vivian Schiller suggesting that Williams consult his psychiatrist. In this regard, NPR handled the situation poorly and probably deserves any potential lawsuit it might face by Williams.

Where the news outlet shined was in embracing the controversy with ongoing, multiple stories about the negative response to Williams’ firing, such as having a live call-in show allowing people to express their opinions and by openly acknowledging its imperfect decision rather than shying away from it.

Other media — include the media calling for the defunding of NPR by Congress — can learn from NPR in this regard. It is doubtful, in an era where most newsrooms hide behind reporter and editorial privilege and refuse to be accountable for mistakes, poor reporting and obvious slants, many will learn from this.

NPR, despite its controversial decision and the poor behavior by its CEO, continues to set the bar far higher than most other American news media.

[NOTE: I've always enjoyed Williams' analysis on NPR and will miss him.]