What Will Happen When All Newspapers Die?

The fact that print journalism is dying is not news anymore. People read less, look at pictures more, love listicles, and rattle off witticisms online as soon they pop into their heads. News executives are talking about "engagement" and "metrics", using staff to create advertorials, and redesigning their websites to remain relevant. The only question is: how will these changes affect what we know about the world?

For starters, we'll be far less informed. Aside from crime, sports events, and "who wore it best?" polls, news is still broken mostly by reporters at local newspapers and wire services. And it is often these reporters that supply the material for the more popular media. (For a funny example, just check out this clip with news reports about Mike Myers' new baby. Could they all have the same news writer on staff?)

A survey this year by the Pew Research Center found that 31 percent of adults have deserted a news outlet because it no longer provides the news and information they want. Of those deserters, more than 60 percent said less complete stories were the most noticeable change in news today. The reason is simple: reporting actually does require skill and talent. Staff writers at a daily paper have to quickly find news to report and figure out how they will complete their stories in only a few hours. They have to interview both sides in a dispute, and present each of the perspectives accurately and fairly. And on tight daily deadlines, they have to distill the most important facts and quotes into a tight and compelling narrative that will both inform readers and keep their attention.

Don't get me wrong: citizen journalism, crowdsourcing, and social listening have enhanced journalism, providing reporters with a faster and far richer view of what readers think and feel. But given a choice of a one-sided rant and shaky cell phone video, or a short and structured story that represents all sides, what would most people pick? I would think the latter. There is simply no amount of packaging and marketing that can replace the value of old-fashioned reporting.

Where Were You on 9/11? Don't Ask

For 11 years we've remembered the day that terrorists flew planes into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 innocent people. But I still avoid conversations that begin: Where were you on 9/11? I know it's an open-ended question that prompts us to share first-hand accounts of that tragic day and its global impact. But whether it's survivor's guilt, hypersensitivity, or both, I just don't feel comfortable sharing my story.

Maybe it's because I was a young reporter at a daily newspaper in the suburbs north of New York City, just getting to work with no idea how big a story it was. Or perhaps, it was because my job post-9/11 was to help find out who died and write about them. In the first few days and weeks, it was making calls and knocking on doors, trying to find out if husbands and wives knew the status of their loved ones. Soon, I was covering memorial services and funerals, from Central Park to Scarsdale, learning about the people who died just because they worked in those two towers. It was hard for sure; but I always felt lucky just to be alive. I saw the funerals as a chance not only to write about the lives of victims, but also to learn from them. Some weeks or months after 9/11, the news staff received an email from a top editor, recognizing the work we had all done and offering us the option to turn down another funeral assignment if it was just too tough. I remember appreciating that message: the editors recognized we were all human.

Still, I never turned down an assignment. It was not because I was better than other reporters, whom I hope took breaks whenever needed. But I guess I saw reporting as my duty to the victims and their families. It didn't matter where I was on 9/11; it only mattered where they were.

"The Newsroom" is to "The Wire" as Hollywood is to Reality

Discussing a story in the newsroom of HBO's The Wire.

A few weeks ago, journalists on CNN's Reliable Sources were discussing whether HBO's The Newsroom reflected the reality of life in a newsroom. The answer was, of course, no: it heightened office drama and competition between journalists to make the show compelling. It also sounded a lot like another show created by Aaron Sorkin: The West Wing. While The West Wing brought the White House to life, it was also preachy and over the top, with characters alternating between witty commentary and in-depth policy analysis with more speed and poise than even the smartest of our nation's presidents.

I can't help but think of a show only a few years earlier on HBO that was by the far one of the best written dramas ever: The Wire. The show depicted Baltimore drug dealers, police officers, drug addicts, politicians, and journalists as real people, struggling to survive in their jobs and their private lives. In the fifth season, the show goes into the newsroom of The Baltimore Sun, and brings together the problems that have plagued print journalism in recent years: from a reporter who makes up news (think Jayson Blair of The New York Times), to an executive editor who cares more about winning a Pulitzer than naming a source. There are even layoffs at the paper, something that has plagued newspapers across the country for the past decade.

Still, the most accurate depictions of life in The Wire's newsroom come from the moments that are most ordinary. There's the scene where the city editor is worried that he might have made a mistake in a story, and calls the copy desk in the middle of the night to double check. Many reporters are guilty of being that neurotic; it's part of a job where accuracy is key and your work is displayed in front of the world every day. And there are the scenes where the city editor is in the newsroom: focused and analytical as he assigns and reads stories, and frustrated and angry as he sees the integrity of the paper begin to crumble. It's not as frenetic and sexy as The Newsroom, but then again, life never really is.   

Improving Sports Coverage in Today's Global and Social World

The Cincinnati Bearcats have brought some of the fun back to sports coverage.

In a post last month, I suggested some questions that might make the dreaded post-game interviews a little more compelling. But there are bigger changes, that in our global world of social media, could take professional sports coverage to the next level. Here are three:

Native Tongue: The face of athletic competition in the U.S. has been changing for a while, with international athletes excelling in sports traditionally dominated by Americans. But instead of embracing the athletes' nationalities, we have asked them to be more like us. Why do pre- and post-game interviews have to be conducted in English? Foreign athletes and coaches can express themselves better in their native languages, and provide a better sense of their cultural identity to fans around the world. Interpreters can quickly translate questions and answers, and even know how to shorten athletes' responses if airtime is running out. Just look at the highly skilled interpreters used during and after boxing matches on HBO and Showtime, and check out this excellent article in The New York Times.  

Inside the Huddle: It's hard for athletes to describe what they were thinking during a sporting event. So why don't we cover more of the conversations they're having with their coaches and teammates in locker rooms, huddles, and meetings at the mound? I know. There's the fear of strategies and plays being given away to the other team; or worse, of the conversations actually being boring. But the reality is the opportunity far outweighs the risks. As the world of social media continues to grow, people are not just sitting on their coaches, yelling at the TV; they're joining fantasy leagues and  tweeting to the world what they think their teams must do to win. Wouldn't it be great if, with thirty seconds left in the game, we could always go into the huddle and listen to the coach explain the play to the team? Or, if during a tennis match, we could hear what the doubles players are saying to each other before each point? We already hear what the corner men tell boxers between each round. Getting that same access in other sports would make the coverage far more engaging.

Have Fun: Sporting events are entertainment. So why are athletes so serious all the time? Understandably, it's how they make a living and they need to be focused to excel. But now more than ever, that is not enough. Athletes need to be more like kids -- having fun, being honest, and not taking themselves too seriously. Whether it's Muhammad Ali, Allen Iverson, or Gael Monfils, it's those that are comfortable being themselves that create the most memorable moments. Instead of training athletes to offer cliched responses in interviews, teams need to encourage them to be more entertaining. It's not that hard; but it is so rare today that those interviews or performances that make the grade tend to go viral. And don't worry: athletes don't need to go as far as the Cincinnati Bearcats to have fun:)

After Nearly a Billion Dollar Renovation, Why Move the World's Most Famous Arena?

Full disclosure: I was once named the Twitter Follower of the Week by MSG:)

If you missed the news yesterday, the New York City Council put the future of Madison Square Garden in question, when it approved a special operating permit for the arena for only 10 years. The permit's short time span is designed to push MSG to relocate and give its underground neighbor, Penn Station, room to expand. But while a renovated Penn Station would be great for commuters, MSG has almost completed a nearly one billion dollar, three-year renovation that has made the arena more beautiful than ever.

So how should MSG respond to the disappointing news? Should they criticize the City Council's decision and keep it in the public eye? Or should they ignore the story and let it die down?

MSG officials seemed to have chosen the latter, saying only that they are looking forward to the completion of the Garden's renovation. From a PR perspective, that was the right decision. Right now, there is no expansion plan for Penn Station. Who knows what such a plan would look like and how much it would affect taxpayers? Also, at least two of the city's mayoral candidates are backing MSG in this potential fight, according to The New York Times. The political landscape could change dramatically in 10 years.

At the same time, if MSG does have to move, focusing on growth now will only help. After all, a modern arena with sold-out crowds and die-hard fans will be worth a lot more than a building whose owners are fighting to keep alive. The best decision is to keep doing what they're doing and let the fight come to them. 

Prison in Dubai for Extramarital Sex: Human Rights Violation, or Something Else?

Abraham Lincoln's honest and direct communication was key to his success as president.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has a reputation as one of the more modern countries in the Arab world, and Dubai is known as one of the most beautiful cities in the Middle East. But recently, a Norweigan woman who reported being raped in Dubai was sentenced to 16 months in prison, according to a report by cnn.com. Among the charges brought against her: having sex outside of marriage. The Norwegian foreign minister has said the conviction of the woman, Marte Deborah Dalelv, is "contrary to fundamental human rights" and could hurt Norway's relationship with the UAE. The story goes on to cite other examples of the UAE's human rights record, including three other foreign women, who reported being raped there and were punished with fines or jail time. All of this got me thinking: why do we call them "human rights violations"?
  
Obviously, "human rights" are a convenient way to categorize any number of acts that we consider immoral and inhumane. They are a euphemism that makes acts like imprisoning rape victims seem like a legal and political issue. But at a certain point, I think they do a disservice. A little specificity can go a long way in communicating your values. Norwegian officials could put it this way: "This is an atrocity that threatens the safety of all women in Dubai. We cannot sit idly while foreign women report being raped and are then jailed for extramarital sex. If the charges against Marte Deborah Dalelv are not dropped immediately, our relationship will soon end."

From a diplomatic perspective, this might be a little too aggressive for Norway's taste. But from a communications perspective, sometimes you just have to be a little direct.

How Does Bankruptcy Become a Compelling Story? People, People, People

Depression Bread Line (1999) by George Segal (For more on Segal, click here)

The royal baby, and for that matter, Kim and Kanye's newborn, seem to be getting more coverage in the media than Detroit declaring bankruptcy. It's not because Americans don't care about Detroit, a city that has been in decline for decades. Or that the public knows that the bankruptcy is a political issue that has upset city employees and is being challenged in court. (For more on this, read the excellent story by John Cassidy on The New Yorker website.) But the real reason is clear and simple: we relate more to people than to complex ideas. While many in Detroit would be affected by this bankruptcy, we don't know them. The idea of a city going bankrupt is just too big to process, and hard to believe and understand. But everyone can relate to mothers and babies, and I think most Americans have heard of Kate and Kim.

So how can the media increase the relevance of Detroit's bankruptcy? The old-fashioned way: just keep talking to people, digging for the most compelling stories that illustrate the impact of the bankruptcy. Perhaps focus on one or two Detroit families and create something akin to a reality series that traces their past, present, and future in the Motor City. Or maybe, find one business, big or small, that is emblematic of the decline, and create a series based on its experiences. There are many ways to humanize the story of Detroit, but at the heart of all them is its people.

Ecstatic? Thrilled? How To Tell the Media You're Happy, When Others Are Still Suffering

Zimmerman attorney Mark O'Mara reacts to verdict. (Source: mediaite.com/cnn.com)

While people debate whether justice was carried out in the George Zimmerman trial, I am still trying to get my head around the reaction of his lawyer, Mark O'Mara, to the verdict. I am not talking about his claim that that the media did a poor job covering the case. Most PR professionals know you should never criticize the media unless they made a serious error which you need to correct. (At best, blasting reporters will damage your relationship with them in the future; at worst, it will cause them to investigate how you do your job.)

But the issue that bothered me was how O'Mara said he was "ecstatic" with the verdict. He didn't look ecstatic, and it doesn't seem like the appropriate emotion to express. After all, at the end of the day, his client did kill Trayvon Martin. What would have been a better word to use? Reporters and publicists often face this question as they try to describe a reaction to controversial news that involved another's suffering. Thrilled? No, that is way to happy, and sometimes can sound sarcastic. Pleased? That is always a safe bet, but doesn't express much emotion. Maybe saying he had mixed emotions? Something like: "We are pleased that our client was acquitted, but we also know that this decision may hurt many who loved or identified with Trayvon Martin. We just ask that we leave George Zimmerman alone as he tries to move on as best he can, and as a country, work together to heal our wounds and help prevent future tragedies."

What do you think about that kind of response? Ecstatic? Thrilled? Disappointed? Please share your thoughts.

Three Questions to Improve Post-Game Interviews

Most of the time, there is nothing more boring than a post-game interview with an athlete. How do you feel about the victory? What was your key to winning? What was going through your mind when you were on the brink of defeat? Of those, the last question is probably the most interesting. But the answers are usually just cliches: "I just dug deep and took it one play at a time." "I just gave it 110 percent." "We left it all on the field." And the list goes on...just check out the Sports Cliche List.

So what's the solution? Do your homework before the interview and ask specific questions that might teach us something about the player as a person and an athlete. For instance:

1. It was obvious that your quickness has increased and become a much more prevalent part of your game. How did you do it? A new diet? A new workout? 
2. At one point you looked like you were going to lose the game. How did you mentally keep yourself in the game when you were feeling down? Do you think of family or happy places? Do you tell yourself it's only a game?  
3. Your victory has no doubt inspired many kids who want to achieve like you. What advice would you give kids who want to be an athlete like you? Spend more time in the gym? Play a lot of different sports or just focus on one?

What do you think? What questions would you ask?