Altered Video Creates Journalism Missteps

To think that I was recently singing the praises of how the Internet allows everyone the opportunity to alert the world to wrongs brought upon it by corporations or individuals. Here is an example of how the powers of the Internet and sloppy journalism can be abused.

Apparently, Baltimore television reporter John Sanders got creative last week, and created a YouTube video in which he doctored the speech of conservative Fox News Radio host John Gibson. And not just a little. In the spirit of using monkey symbols to connote racism, Sanders decided to cast Gibson in the role of over-the-top racist, with comments that seemed to compare Attorney General Eric Holder to a monkey with a “bright blue scrotum.” Sanders engineered this colorful bit of dialogue by splicing a clip about such a monkey, which had escaped from a Seattle zoo, with Gibson’s comments regarding Holder, who is African American.

After posting the video online with a disclaimer that it wasn’t true, the upshot was that Sanders was fired from his television station, and Gibson claimed to be personally affected by the video. “These days it’s really dangerous on the Internet,” he said. “These things go viral, and people don’t see the correction and the mea culpa. You can’t unring the bell.”

The problem was not just that a television reporter had made an inflammatory video, presumably for the amusement of his friends, but that the news website, The Huffington Post, picked up the doctored video and posted it without any disclaimer and without calling Gibson or Fox for comment.

I’m sure I would disagree with most of what John Gibson and his guests have to say on his conservative talk show. Many of them may indeed be racists, for all I know. Still, I can’t condone a deliberate and false attack on someone’s character just because of different philosophies—this is especially wrong for a journalist.

How did a reporter not know that making public a fake video on a nationally known personality, even with a disclaimer, would reflect badly on his television station? If he is not aware of libel laws, I’m sure his former employer is familiar with the expensive damage that can be caused by a defamation of character lawsuit. And c’mon, The Huffington Post was so eager to jump on the racism bandwagon that no one called to confirm legitimacy and sources? And no one noticed the disclaimer?

The combination of careless reporting and the ease of access offered by the Internet can make for some ugly consequences. People are all too eager to believe outrageous news, even if it is false. Reporters have a responsibility to their profession and themselves to use their heads before diving into murky waters.

Selling Stability in the New Economy

American companies are discovering that consumer anxiety over the economy is forcing them to take a different approach when hawking their wares. In the past, advertising agencies have positioned products by emphasizing a special ingredient or property. Lately, companies have promoted low prices as a pathway of appeal for consumers. But with everyone offering low prices, drastic sales and deep discounts, the question is how to stand out in the crowd?

Geico’s new approach involves the psychological manipulation of its potential customer base in what may be a new wave of advertising strategy. Venerable financier Warren E. Buffet controls Berkshire Hathaway, the company that has owned Geico for more than a decade. Therefore, Geico’s recent ad campaign, run by the Martin Agency, features the well-known investor’s name being used as a symbol of financial stability. By linking Geico’s status with the Buffet empire, the company hopes to portray itself as the one to trust in these uncertain times.

According to Ted Ward, vice president for marketing at Geico, “The strategy for this is driven by the need to emphasize to people that there’s a way to save money without risking anything.” By using their trademark gecko in various situations (getting a tiny suit from an executive, participating in trust exercises) the company hopes to offset the “doom and gloom” aspects of the economy to create ads that are lighthearted but will stand out with the Buffet connection.

I am always fascinated at the strategies ad agencies come up with to appeal to customers (Super Bowl ads are the most creative attempts every year), and this one, in my opinion, could be the beginning of a new trend to promote stability as a selling point for companies--not that it hasn’t been done before, but usually for very conservative, staid companies with very serious ads. This approach pairs a lizard with a symbol of stability, which is very different.

Hard times can make for a wave of creativity as people work to find new ways to make money. I expect to see more ads along these lines by other firms anxious to convey limited risk.

But mostly, I have to say, I am relieved to see that Geico has decided to replace those boringly-awful cavemen ads with something (anything) else! It will be interesting to see if Geico’s business fares better with this new approach.

Lucky Plus iPhone Equals Bliss

The sting has been taken out of shopping. Last Monday, the Condé Nast magazine, Lucky, debuted an iPhone application called, “Lucky at Your Services.” Initially, this new application will feature more than 70 shoes listed in the March shoe guide, and shoppers can choose shoe type, brand, color or size. After deciding on this information, shoppers can click the “Find it Near You” button, which directs them to area stores with the available shoes using either GPS or ZIP code.

In an interesting twist on combining electronic and print media, Lucky has hired a call center with representatives who will confirm that the shoe is available. Reps will even go so far as to text shoppers with information about where the shoe has been set aside for pickup. Lucky is planning to update this application in future issues to offer other items for purchase in a similar manner.

While Lucky has been accused of being more of a catalog than a magazine, “Lucky at Your Services” represents the first combination(at least to me) of using print plus electronics for direct shopping. This differs from calling up a company to order a product—the new service lets someone else deal with finding the item you want in an area store, thus no shipping charges. All you have to do is pick it up.

I love it. What can I say? Some people live to shop, but I have no talent in this area. I’ve been waiting years to have someone do all the looking and locating for me. Surely, this will be a trendsetter!

I realize that Lucky is trying out this new idea because ad revenues fell 11 percent in 2008, and the magazine hopes to prove to its advertisers that shoppers are using the service; thus, advertising in Lucky would be a good way to reach them. Condé Nast publications, in particular, have been hit hard by the retreat of advertisers.

So, yes, the recession is a drag, and magazines are getting thinner all the time. But hard times can bring creativity and an onslaught of different ideas for dealing with less. Other publications should try this approach. Just think--Gourmet Magazine could have a “Cook it For You” iPhone application, directing readers to a company that would cook or deliver the pictured meal in a timely manner.

The possibilities are endless.

How to Save Your Newspaper

This week’s cover of Time magazine features an article on how to save the daily newspaper from becoming extinct. While it’s noted that newspapers have more readers than ever, the bottom line is that fewer of these readers are paying because the same thing is online for free. The three revenue sources for a newspaper are newsstand sales, subscriptions and advertising. Because most publishers have relied on advertising, the freefall of ad revenues in 2008, both in print and online, have made for a shaky foundation, resulting in many severe cuts.

Relying on advertisers exclusively has another downside because, ideally, the editorial content of a publication should be geared to its readers, not its advertisers. How many people have flipped through articles in any magazine, only to find that the content features the products of several advertisers? When articles fail to be of interest to consumers, readership is bound to fall.

And going back to Thomas Paine and the time of the American Revolution, the free press has been essential to any free democratic society. Journalists and the content they produce in interaction with their readers are really the intelligence of a society, as well as THE institution of public discourse.

But back to the article, this is happening because news organizations are giving away their news online. In the spirit that all things on the Web should be free to readers, publications like Time initially watched its online ad revenues increase for getting the information to more people, but at the same time, abandoned being paid for content. When ad revenue hit bottom last year, cuts had to be made.

Well, what’s wrong with going back to getting paid for content? In a real twist of irony, I subscribe to the print version of Time, but as I looked online for a hyperlink to this article, there it was, almost in its entirety, laid out online for absolutely free. So, why should I buy this magazine?

The writer suggests that a system of micropayments would allow readers to pick and choose which online news to pay for rather than forcing people to subscribe.

I love freebies, but I love this profession more, and I hate to see it go down in flames, and along with it, jobs for budding writers, photographers and graphic designers. If the dailies go, yes, there will still be online jobs, but markedly fewer. If the print versions stick around, combined with online, more college graduates in the field will be able to seek jobs in a FUN profession (one of the few left, in my opinion). They may have to work harder and write high quality pieces, but there will be jobs.

Some argue that readers will balk at payment for what was once free, and some will say that remaining free sites will attract more readers. I don’t think so; as long as the fees are small enough, I would expect that there will still be enough researchers and just fans of good journalism to pay for the distinguished sites.

This isn’t just about keeping the print versions of newspapers and magazines; in my opinion, this is about the survival of a great profession.