Toward a Medical News Community

Amen to this from Steve Rubel:

Further, the lines between old and new media are blurring. Community is becoming a river that flows through virtually every web site, The media is adding social networking features while also embedding itself into big horizontal hubs like Facebook or Twitter. They have embraced changed faster than we have.

To thrive in this new distributed environment, the PR community must step out in front of the curtain, become a bit more technically adept and participate transparently as individuals in online communities. We will have to openly collaborate and add value to the network and help the companies we represent do exactly the same.

You can read the whole post here.

I’ve been thinking along those same lines, and I believe Facebook has tremendous potential for building community among journalists and the news sources with whom they work. That’s why I created a Facebook group called Health & Medical Journalists and PIOs. In a future post I will give more of the rationale. Meanwhile, if you’re interested in joining the group, I’ve set it up as closed, requiring that an Admin approve any new members. But just click here to join, and if you’re either a PIO for an academic medical center or a journalist, I’ll be glad to add you. I also will want to invite others to become Admininstrators, so let me know if you’re interested in that, too.
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: , , , , , ,

ALI Social Media Summit Presentation

As requested by Michael Rudnick, Chairperson of the Advanced Learning Insitute’s Social Media Summit, I have posted the PDF of my presentation on the blog he established as a clearinghouse. Go there to access my presentation, and feel free to leave comments or get in touch with me.

TechnoratiTechnorati: , ,

Social Media Summit – Day 2

We heard some excellent presentations today, including one from Andy Sernovitz of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association, another from Mary Owens of Motorola, and a third from Mayor Bill Gentes of Round Lake, IL. A panel discussion featuring Mary, Bill Hanekamp and Patrick Rooney also created some good discussion.

I liked Bill Hanekamp’s four essentials for a successful microsite: it needs to be Entertaining, with Exclusive content, Timely and Relevant to the target audience. We also talked afterward about whether companies can put their video on YouTube and still keep other companies from incorporating it into their for-profit sites. Bill said the owner of content maintains copyright, and a cease-and-desist letter to the offending company will get them to pull it down. The panel said companies need to have a presence on YouTube to be relevant.

This made Kimberly Smith’s kind words all the more meaningful as she launched her blog today. I firmly believe that as more communications professionals begin to understand just how easy it is to blog and start experimenting, they will find applications that make sense for them. As Michael Rudnick said, we need to see the tools as just infrastructure. Don’t pay attention to how most people use them. If they are free (and most of them are) and you can meet a need with them, be creative and take advantage.

So – for those who attended this week, what was the most important nugget you took away? What are you going to apply in your work? In your personal life?

TechnoratiTechnorati: , , , ,

Low-Power Community Radio?

A comment on this post reminded me of something I was thinking a few days ago: remember when the commercial radio stations were fighting with the low-power radio stations? I haven’t been involved in this debate for a while (I used to work for a member of Congress, so I recall something of the issue; I’ve been out of politics for about 7 years, so I don’t know whether it’s still a live issue.)

Some in the community at that time were concerned about consolidation by Clear Channel and other big players, and that radio would lack local community voices…so they wanted to have extremely low-power stations that would preserve that local megaphone (or maybe I should say miniphone.)

Now we seem to have come full-circle. Clear Channel is going private and selling off hundreds of its stations. And with the advent of podcasting less than three years ago, now anybody can get as big an audience as they can attract. No FCC license needed.

In fact, that’s my working definition of New Media: anything that doesn’t require an FCC license.

Admittedly, the FCC licenses are for public airwaves, and there is a stewardship responsibility. I don’t know how exactly what the ownership rules are (and Nabisco, whose name links to the NAB site) obviously has a dog in this fight, as he properly disclosed in his comment.

Who disagrees with him and why? I can see that the broadcast stations are going to have a significant advantage in building an audience because they are using the public airwaves for transmission. But with bandwidth costs essentially approaching zero, now almost anyone has very similar ability to reach an audience through audio. And we can do video, too…which radio stations can’t, except on their web sites.

And as we see on the net, communities aren’t necessarily geographic. FIR, for instance, reaches a community of people interested in PR and technology.

In a world of infinite choice for audio entertainment and information, does it still make sense to limit ownership of local radio stations?

I don’t know…I’m sure open to hearing arguments on the other side. But it seems the days of media monopolies are over.

TechnoratiTechnorati: , , , ,