Category: News Media

Executive Physical Feedback

Rich Karlgaard from Forbes.com has an interesting first-person account of his executive physical at Mayo Clinic.

More Mayo (Clinics), Please

I spent yesterday, from 6:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., being poked, probed, bled, drained and scanned at the Mayo Clinic’s Scottsdale, Ariz., branch.

I was marched to within an inch of my ticker’s life on a treadmill, made to sit in a claustrophobic “body pod” while wearing only a Euro-weeny Speedo and a shower cap, and held hostage in a small room while a fat lady lectured us on nutrition.

I loved every minute.

What brought me to Mayo was its Executive Health Program. I hadn’t had a thorough physical exam since turning 50. Mayo Clinic enjoys the best reputation in the world for delivering this sort of service, so why not try it?

I was told that the Scottsdale branch is minor-league compared with the Rochester, Minn., headquarters, but after spending a day there, I cannot believe this is true. The quality of the docs and staff, the cool diagnostic equipment–but most of all, the incredible IT system that keeps the docs and staff up-to-the-minute and working in concert–is first-rate.

Word-of-mouth recommendations from satisfied patients have been the most important reason why people choose to come to Mayo Clinic. Another important factor has been stories in news media. Here we have both of these wrapped up in one, a journalist telling his personal story.

Our goal is for the patient experience to be equally positive at all three Mayo Clinic locations. I’m glad to hear Mr. Karlgaard was impressed.

TechnoratiTechnorati: , ,

Duty to inform us about Paris Hilton?

Peter Himler calls me (at least via link) one of the “self-anointed new media pundits” and lumps me in among those who “believe the live media interview (is) outmoded.” While I appreciate the link (no such thing as bad publicity), I think he misunderstood what I wrote. At least he misrepresented it.

Calling what I wrote “vitriol” is a bit much. But the good thing is because what I wrote is available for everyone to see (and not buried in a reporter’s notebook), people can reach their own judgment.

—
:Updated – Peter weighs in with a nice comment below. Thanks for the clarification, Peter.
—

Actually, what I said was I thought all sides in the controversy had overreacted. Of course there’s a place for the phone or in-person interview… that’s the way we do most of them. And I suggested a way Calcanis and Winer could have done the interview and still have had their “cover” through an audio recording. Journalists quite frequently record interviews; in principle, there’s no reason why Winer or Calcanis couldn’t do the same (provided they cleared it in advance with the reporter.)

My disagreement with Levy was with the sky-is-falling nature of his lament, and his contention that journalists are “not acting out of self-interest, but a sense of duty to inform the population.”

Of course there’s some element of truth in that; as I said, we all have a mixture of motives behind what we do. Some of our motives are noble like that, but also in that mix for journalists is a desire to be first with the story, or get the exclusive.

For example, in my work we have had examples of representatives from two competing network morning shows interested in the same story. When one found out that the competitor had interviewed the subject earlier that day, the reporter put away the camera, packed up the lights, and went back without the story.

Did the story suddenly become something that was no longer important information for the public? Obviously not. Looking for the competitive leg up meant the second network didn’t want to cover the same story as the first.

That’s all fine. They have businesses to run, and a big part of their calculation is what they think will increase ratings. And, in Mr. Levy’s case, if he’s not thinking about writing columns that will attract and engage readers, you can bet his editors are.

Which is why I get a little impatient with journalists who act like everyone in business has ulterior motives, while they as journalists are above it all…just “acting…out of a sense of duty to inform the population.”

“Duty to inform”…is that why Barbara Walters got the post-jail exclusive with Paris Hilton?

So…the phone interview isn’t dead, nor should it be. But when Mr. Levy writes his column, or Mr. Vogelstein his article, they get to take time to say things in exactly the way they want.

Like I am right now. The Republic is not imperiled by some interview subjects like Calcanis and Winer asking for the same consideration. The journalists are free to refuse the request, and then the subjects can decide whether they want to participate or not.

We do lots of media interviews. We’ve done many by email, often suggested by the journalist for his or her convenience. I don’t think the stories were “impoverished.”

If anything, Vogelstein’s story (if he still writes it) will be more impoverished by not including Calcanis and Winer at all than it would have been by at least getting their considered remarks for consideration. He could have done the email or blog interviews and then decided not to use any of the statements, if he didn’t find them useful or genuine.

My fellow “self-anointed” pundits like Dan Gillmor, and Jeff Jarvis simply aren’t doing what Peter insinuates when he says:

The call for all interviews to be conducted via email is short-sighted, if not naive, from a PR perspective.

No one is saying all interviews should be conducted by email. That’s a red herring. Ironically, Wired is exploring crowdsourcing, collaborative journalism. Online interviews with Calcanis and Winer would have been in keeping with that.

TechnoratiTechnorati: , , , , , ,

Mutual Hyperventilation

In Newsweek, Stephen Levy’s The Technologist column examines the controversy involving Fred Vogelstein of Wired magazine and a couple of bloggers who refused to submit to the oral examination of an interview.

Here is what happened to Vogelstein when he sought his interviews. First, blog entrepreneur Jason Calacanis told him he would not speak to him, but answer questions only by e-mail, something Vogelstein wouldn’t agree to. Then, blogging pioneer Dave Winer told him he would not be interviewed by phone. He suggested that Vogelstein e-mail questions that he would then answer publicly on his blog, a solution for which Vogelstein had even less enthusiasm.

Winer and Calcanis reportedly were concerned about possibly having quotes taken out of context, so they wanted their interviews in writing. They also didn’t want a slip of the tongue or a “gotcha” question to lead to something being published that didn’t reflect their real views.

Levy sees this as a troubling sign. His conclusion:

We in the journalism tribe operate under the belief that when we ask people to talk to us we are not acting out of self-interest but a sense of duty to inform the population. It’s an article of our faith that when subjects speak to us, they are engaging in a grand participatory act where everyone benefits. But these lofty views don’t impress bloggers like Rosen. “You have to prove [you represent the public],” he says. Yes, we do. But every time we lose the priceless knowledge from those essential, real-time interviews, our stories are impoverished, to the detriment of our readers: you.

What we have here is a case of both sides overreacting. Winer and Calcanis could have done the phone interviews, but asked permission to record them. Journalists make this request all the time of their subjects: “Is it OK if I record this? I want to be sure to get it right.” Then, if the article came out and didn’t quote them accurately, they could release or post the transcript or the audio file on their blogs. I understand that they might prefer to have time to pause and reflect in answering questions, though, so what gets printed isn’t just what they happen to blurt out.

Levy’s lament also is a bit overwrought. Lots of interviews happen by email, and it’s often for the convenience of both parties. An interview-via-blog is probably much more unusual, but in principle it’s in keeping with what Wired is attempting with its crowdsourcing initiative. Make the interviews and notes available to the world, and let readers judge for themselves how well you captured the essence of the story.

A greater concern is the attitude that comes through in his conclusion. Too many journalists seem to be suspicious of everyone’s motives except their own. “We in the journalism tribe operate under the belief that when we ask people to talk to us we are not acting out of self-interest but a sense of duty to inform the population.” Does he really mean, or expect us to believe, that journalists are the only people for whom self-interest doesn’t play a role?

If their only motivation is “to inform the population,” why would they object to publication of their interview on a blog? Wouldn’t that provide more information to the population?
The reality is that journalists are like the rest of the human race: we all have mixed motives for what we do. That’s why news organizations seek exclusive interviews: they want to get the story (at least as they see it) to the population, but they also want the prestige of being first with the story, or the only one with it.

The other reality is that while there was a time when journalism was the main source of information for the population, that’s no longer the case. People can get information directly, im-mediately, literally, “without media.”

Good journalism remains important, but I believe we will all be better off when we don’t create artificial distinctions between members of “the journalism tribe” and everyone else.

TechnoratiTechnorati: , , , ,

Mayo Clinic for Horses?

Now I’ve seen everything.

Tuesday’s Seattle Post-Intelligencer has a special report under the headline “At Pegasus, Mayo Clinic for Thoroughbreds Meets the Four Seasons,” with this as the lead:

REDMOND — The sign on the iron gate at the end of 260th Place Northeast spells P-E-G-A-S-U-S in such a way that a visitor concludes that what’s to come is something special.

Special, indeed.

Pass through the gate and what comes into view on about 100 well-groomed acres on a bluff above the Snoqualmie River Valley and the town of Carnation is a complex — the Pegasus Equine Rehabilitation and Training Center — that has to be the equine equivalent of the Mayo Clinic augmented by five-star luxury.

I’m glad I work at the Mayo Clinic for people, and that at least the P-I also runs our syndicated Medical Edge newspaper column, which is offered through Tribune Media Services.

TechnoratiTechnorati: , ,

NY Times to Depend on Video Syndication

Even the New York Times realizes that its video success depends on syndicating its video to blogs and other web sites, not in just driving traffic to the nytimes.com site.

That’s the report from Lost Remote. Here are some of Steve Safran’s highlights from Martin Nisenholtz’s presentation:

“We started to create original video for the web – and grew a desk from a handful to 25 people completely integrated into the newsroom.”
Our teams abroad have video cameras. We’re starting to build the full infrastructure.

“Video costs have dropped dramatically. The video we now produce – the majority requires a specialist in the field. This notion that the print reporters would be able to produce videos still hasn’t taken shape yet, but the trend is taking shape.”

“What does it take to get a print reporter to do this? After about a half a day of training, the print reporters do get the basic skills they need.”
“To reach a broader audience, the Times must distribute its video outside of NYTimes.com. We believe we need to go outside the walls to make this work.”

“By this strategy we get to put our video in front of a much bigger audience than we would by (keeping it at) the NYTimes.com.”

“It’s possible that something like AppleTV is going to be the living room’s iPod. That’s going to fundamentally change the way programming takes place and, we’re very early in this, but we’re determined to take a role in this.”

Goal in the next 18 months: “We want to have four to five times more streams generated outside NYTimes.com than inside it.”

“We do believe that in video, brands matter. Content choices are expanding at a dizzying rate. Brands serve as a beacon out there. We think that is one of our differentiators out there. And we think quality matters, too. Good is still good and bad is still bad. I still put my money on the guys in the Times newsroom than on the amateurs. That’s not to say there won’t be good amateur content.”

“The advantages that the new folks on the block have is that they have nothing to protect. Even though the New York Times is 156 years old, we’re still new in video. Failure (in video) is not a step backward for us.”

“Avoid square pegs. Web video is not TV… The whole format is radically changing.”

“The blogosphere is very important for moving video around. These are the new rules of the medium. We’re starting to think of ourselves not only as creators but as programmers as well.”

TechnoratiTechnorati: , , ,