Archive for April, 2008
Liberate Media pays homage to the Facebook ‘is’ status option
April 30th, 2008
Liberate Media is going back in time today, way back to when the ‘Facebook is’ status option was not optional.
More than 160,000 users wanted to remove the ‘is’ status and even a Facebook group was created called “Petition to Get Rid of “is” from Facebook Status Update!”.
On the night of November 20th 2007 they got their wish: the ‘is’ in Facebook status updates was removed.
Have a look at the comedy video from crackle below that pays homage to the Facebook ‘is’ status. Be warned there is some strong language and content that may offend.
From Crackle:
April 24th, 2008
There’s a fascinating debate going on over at the Guardian’s ‘Comment is free’. It started off as a discussion between well-known blogger and journalist Jeff Jarvis and the Guardian’s America editor Michael Tomasky, but has turned into something much bigger.
The debate centers on: Should the internet’s new breed of ‘citizen journalists’ have the responsibilities of journalists or the rights of citizens?
The catalyst for the discussion was a report by Mayhill Fowler, on the Huffington Post’s politics blog, Off The Bus in which Fowler confirmed that Barack Obama had described rural, white voters as “bitter”. Obviously this caused plenty of political noise, and last week Michael Tomasky argued that Fowler’s reporting raised serious ethical questions, suggesting that blogging, like journalism, needs rules. Jeff Jarvis responded on his blog Buzzmachine that openness, not rules, was demanded in the era of the internet.
Of course the debate hasn’t stopped there - it’s still going on at ’Comment is free’ and i think it raises a wider question of reputation on the web, which Jarvis touches on.
If, as the debate mentions, a blogger, citizen journalist, call them what you will, publishes a tissue of lies, they will be found out, barracked - (excuse the pun) and lose their hard earned reputation. So, the question becomes why would a trusted source ruin their own reputation, which is something that takes time to build and is hard work to keep? And if the story isn’t coming from a trusted source, why would it be believed?
While i understand that Tomasky is trying to bring some regulation to citizen journalists, i believe the accountability is inherent and the environment radically different to that of mainstream journalists. Therefore, why would bloggers need a stifling rule book, which would just be ignored by the muck-rakers that he is trying to eradicate anyway?
I believe that in an online world of words and content, where transparency and reputation is the one thing that can’t be faked or purchased, the web is self-regulating as it’s easy to write a lie, but hard to get people to believe it.
Personality versus brand on Twitter
April 24th, 2008
There’s no denying that over the past month or so, Twitter has increasingly become a brand promotion tool. On the media side in particular, journalists, newspapers and magazines are using the communications tool with increased frequency to break their stories.
What I’ve noticed is that subconsciously I’m paying far more attention to some media Tweets than others…while some are very useful and time-saving, others are admittedly going straight into my mental ’spam’ folder. I thought it might be interesting to share my views with you on why I think this is, and seek your feedback…
It appears the most useful Tweeters are those who are using the platform under their own name, sharing not only their breaking news as it happens, but also their personal views on issues within their sector. Jemima Kiss is a great example.
On the other hand, journalists Tweeting under their newspaper or magazine brand are having a tougher job of attaining ’stickiness’ with me. If the tool is only being used to promote stories, with no individual voice coming through, the Tweet is of far less value. I’d much rather receive news roundups as a daily email, than eight Tweets in a row. This is particularly aggrevating when the news isn’t exclusive or breaking, but rather something that is all over the news already.
Media Week has been making great strides on the social media front recently, and I was encouraged by its Facebook message on the subject of Twitter today:
“The twittering is also coming along nicely. So far we’ve been posting headlines and links, but we’re going to be flexing our gossip glands a little more in future so feel free to sign up for tip-offs on the stories behind the headlines - we’re at twitter.com/mediaweek if you want to keep an eye on us. If you’ve got any suggestions on what we should be sending out, just let us know.”
It will be interesting to see if Media Week can effectively combine personality with brand. Travolution is incidentially doing a very good job of this.
It would be interesting to know whether people agree/disagree with me…
Dance Jam puts the social community into dance…(you might even learn a dance move or two)
April 22nd, 2008
The concept was created by the famed singer and dancer/entertainer MC Hammer, and so DANCEJAM should be gold.
MC Hammer says the concept of the site is to “be a star or make a star”.
Dance Jam is one of my favourite social networks/community sites of the year so far. It may not be the prettiest to look at or have the best features, but in terms of pure entertainment it’s 5 star!
The primary idea behind Dance Jam is the BATTLE section, where dancers do their thing (shake it), and it’s up to you to decide who is top dog.
Check out a battle here:
The features:
All the usual stuff: upload videos, leave comments, search by video type, share via email, but there is one feature I particularly like which works really well for this site . It’s the ability to play the video in slow motion - so if you see a killer move you like you can break it down and potentially learn it!
Dance Jam as a knowledge base:
The Dance Jam site has an educational element too. For instance, there is a video called A Snake in the grass which is suposidaly where Michael Jackson got his influences from. Check it out - you won’t believe the similarities!
Right that’s it from me. I’m off to try a moon talk…I mean walk!
Should PR fight its corner? Or just evolve…
April 18th, 2008
Danny Rogers’ leader article in PR Week raised a common and often debated subject this week. In Danny’s words: ‘Since the beginning of the year there have been several diatribes against the PR industry in the national media, equating it to a malevolent force’.
Nothing new there then eh!
Two quotes from the piece stand out in particular:
Exhibit A: Nick Davies’ book: Flat Earth News, argues PR’s raison d’etre is ‘… that the masses are a political threat whose thinking must be controlled by the techniques of PR’.
and
Exhibit B: A quote from this week’s Independent: ‘The aim (of PR) is to undermine or marginalise independent journalism, control decision-making, and lastly, mystify and misinform the public.’
PR gets a rough ride from the media as it is the media on the receiving end of much of what is wrong with the industry. To be fair their experiences have probably led them to these assumptions/conclusions, and after more than 10 years in the industry i can see why. I have met an assortment of PR professionals over this time, some that i am proud to say are the most intelligent, creative and real people I’ve met, and others well, are not.
So am i here to defend PR? No. Am i here to slate it? Nah. Do i have a point? I hope so…
The point is that as with all industries and stages of evolution, the strongest, or in fact the most suited to their environment, survive. PR’s evolution is based on moving away from the controlling instincts that the quotes accuse us of. Those that persist in employing these outdated models in a new environment will be found out and go the way of the famous flightless bird from Mauritius (featured above).
I think many of us, especially in the digital space, have already moved away from controlling the message/audience/issue. I feel a great many agencies and individuals have changed inline with their environment and as a result they are flourishing.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think PR needs another slagging match, or even defend itself to these allegations. What PR needs to do is understand how communications has changed, not just on the web but in all walks of life.
So, should PR fight its corner as Danny says? Or just get on with it, shed this archaic image and prove the doubters wrong.