News - viewers and readers dictating what they get

Today, the news is not so much reported as digested. It is why the larger news agencies race to report based on the ratings they think they will receive, rather than on the nature of the story. It is why public relations firms are no longer an outside irritant, but a relied upon source. It is also why more and more people are relying less on traditional media for their news, and turning to independent reporting through blogs, twitter and trusted websites.

It is nobodies fault but a failure to evolve. Newspapers were too focused on the "paper" part of their name, and not enough on the "news." When the idea of a 24 hour television source for the news was put on the table. The old fashioned news rooms laughed at the idea. "there is simply not enough news for 24 hour coverage" they said. In less than a year they were shocked to find that people were perfectly happy with news sound bites rather than lengthy stories.

A dozen or so years later, the television networks got too caught up in the fact that their anchors were stars rather than journalists at heart. Some replaced experienced journalists with flashy anchors. Their audiences, who wanted news a bit fluffier than papers, found they did not want as much fluff as they were now getting. Who knows but perhaps they overshot the mark a bit, which is why there's a bit of a controversy as to where is the line between real news reporting and opinion.

I'm not sure we're going to have to worry about that for long. Because now both newspapers and television outlets, as well as magazines and newsletters are finding that their audiences are leaving them for the words and reporting of bloggers and digital journalists. Why? Because these independent people are the new journalists consumers are more comfortable following. These are the people delivering the news the way their audiences want it. Fast, quick, targeted, with just the right amount of commentary. Does this foretell the changes to come? Smaller, more targeted news outlets run by people who really care about what they are reporting? Is this the re-birth of the Fourth Branch of the government?

I hope so. If it's any indication, just look at the direction most advertisers are moving their media dollars - toward the online bloggers who are influencing their customers the most. If there is one indication of what consumers think of the news, just look at those brands who are putting money where their mouth is. We may not see The New York Times in print or CNN over the airwaves in twenty years. But we will always see our favorite brands.

Sometimes Shutting Up Is the Best Policy

So what's going on with Dick Cheney? He had his 8 years in the spotlight, outpacing Andy Warhol's 15 minutes of fame, by immeasurable time. But he just wouln't let it lie. Now, there's nothing wrong with standing by your convictions - no matter how misplaced they are. But there is something wrong in believing your own press. Bottom line, there's often a better way to go about getting your agenda through, than just forcing it into the public eye.

Not only is he becoming known as the only politician who is doing more public speaking after he left office than when he was in the office, but his ratings keep dropping every time he speaks. Based on a CNN poll, fifty-five percent of people questioned still have an unfavorable opinion of the former vice president.

And what about George Bush - who hasn't said a thing in public since leaving the oval office?
In the same timeframe, “Former President George W. Bush's favorable rating rose six points in that same time period, and Bush has not given a single public speech since he left office.” Or so says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

So what's the brand lesson in this? Sometimes it just best to say nothing. Sometimes it is best to build a consensus before going public. Sometimes it is far better to stay away from your the press than pushing an agenda through it. And at absolutely no time, should you stop looking at the polls. Agree or disagree with them, but you only get yourself in trouble by ignoring them.

CNN - The Un-News

Did I miss something? When did CNN change from reporting the news to thinking they are the news? While watching the Democratic Convention last night, I kept changing channels back and forth between CNN and the McNeil Leherer Report - that's right good old PBS. While PBS showed the entire convention and let us make our own decisions on how well or how badly it went, I noticed CNN avoided showing any of the speeches until Hillary came close to appearing that is.

While Wolf Blitzer was trying to stir up coverage for an alleged plot against Barack Obama - something that even the reporter on the ground sounded confused about - former Denver Mayor and Obama Campaign Co-Chair Federico Peña wasa giving one of the more insightful speeches about his energy policy. While CNN ran endless "what if" scenarios, Lilly Ledbetter gave a speech that was one of the most compelling insights into women's rights and inequal pay. While Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, shared his American story to an astounded audience, CNN ran commercials.

Now, I'm not saying the Democrats know how to put on a great show, but shouldn't a new organization report the news? I mean, it was truly astounding to see how CNN failed to cover the speakers and the event, when they touted themselves as the "best coverage available." Instead, they opted to fill the screen with a badly operated red/blue map, and with endless scenarios of how the final election could go. So many in fact, that it became more confusing than insightful.

Which is where CNN's brand is beginning to suffer. It's a great brand if you only watch the placards that swing up between commercial breaks. But when it times to turn all that brand messaging into something real, they are failing miserably - Lou Dobbs excepting.

When will they realize, the more the reporters think that "they are the news," the less they will be viewed as reporters "of the news." There's nothing wrong with taking a network, or a brand, in this direction. But it's not the direction of a great news station. With Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper reporting, CNN might think about joining with E!. It would fit their format better, it would be far more entertaining, and at least their brand would be true to their reporting.

Paris - looking for your next new thing?