There’s Never a Good Time for Fake News (#9 Trending Article in 2019)
Neil Foote, President & Founder, Foote Communications
Over the past couple weeks, we’ve seen a disastrous publicity stunt gone wrong. A hate crime turned out to be an alleged hoax. A black man was called out by a black police chief. A black gay man has become the punch line in a terrible joke. In a world where fake news and alternative facts are the favorite phrases of our nation’s president, theJussie Smollett story has exemplified the worst-case scenario of exploiting the heightened emotions in this country circling around hate, racism, bigotry, prejudice and social injustice.
The tragedy here is that Smollett’s goal to call attention to hatred against gay black men is interlaced with a narrative where we have public officials apologizing for black-face pictures in high school and college yearbooks. Major brands, like Prada and Gucci, and singer Katy Perry are in crisis management mode as they apologize for selling products that were blatantly insensitive.
On Thursday, Chicago law enforcement has laid out a damaging series of events that reconstructs a calculated and intentional act by an actor of a popular TV show. We’ll learn more in the days and weeks ahead, but among the many lessons to be learned here: Truth and transparency is critical to managing an emotionally charged situation. Will we ever know why Jussie Smollett really did what he did? Perhaps not. Have Chicago law enforcement gathered an indisputable number of facts to convict this attention-starved actor of a felony charge of filing a false police report? Based on the press conference, there’s enough evidence to make you wonder how Smollett will defend his innocence.
The harsh reality is that anyone or any company trying to create a series of facts or events to get attention is walking down a dangerous road. At stake, if and when the truth comes out, is a loss of credibility, a loss of sales, and a long road back to consumer acceptance. We live in a world where there are so many more creative ways to get attention, increase sales and improve your brand acceptance- or get a raise.
Perhaps what we’ve learned is that Chicago Police Supt. Eddie Johnson 1) did not let his race get in the way of doing his job; and 2) clearly and firmly detailed the intensive investigation that his officers did to reconstruct the events of the past month. If you think of Johnson as the CEO of a company facing a horrific image problem, he offered a textbook example of how you can dispel the doubters when you confidently share the details and engage all key members of your team to lay out the facts.
We haven’t heard the end of this story. What we have learned is that we can’t let this incident minimize prejudice based on race or gender. We can’t allow lead individuals or companies try to use ill-conceived plans to increase sales or market share.
About the Author: Neil Foote is a veteran journalist and media executive. He draws from his experience at the Miami Herald, Washington Post, Belo Corporation and Tom Joyner’s Reach Media. He also teaches digital and social media for journalists, media management and business journalism at the University of North Texas’ Frank W. & Sue Mayborn School of Journalism and runs Foote Communications, a media consulting firm. The native of Brooklyn, NY also is president of the board for the National Black Public Relations Society and founder of PoliticsInColor.com
Let’s Use the World Series as a Step Toward Understanding the Difference between Facts, Bias and Fake News
Leigh Fatzinger is Founder and CEO of Turbine Labs
I made sure to pick up a copy of The Washington Post before my early flight home from D.C. the morning after the Washington Nationals won the World Series.
I had no intention of opening it, having already read the online edition. The paper is going into a box for safe keeping, with hopes that my children will someday remove it and read the story about a ball club essentially written off in June, only to claw back to win the whole thing in late October, on the road.
Though I’m not sure what they’ll do, perhaps years from now, I’m certain that many people right now won’t touch The Post, having been conditioned to believe its content is “fake news.” The whole publication. Every word.
But the Oct. 31, 2019, front page story sure isn’t fake. I saw Howie Kendrick clang the go-ahead homer off the right-field pole. I read the main bar story. I heard the horns and cheers outside of my window well past midnight, as many others likely did across the nation’s capital.
So maybe we could all at least try to make this moment in history into an opportunity to collectively retrain our brains to see beyond generalizations like “fake news” and find a way to rebuild our trust in journalism.
Yes, the media must do its part (and it has a lot of work to do). But as engaged readers and viewers, we too must bear some of the burden – to understand that reporters, like all of us, carry inherent biases. But that doesn’t make all of their stories factually incorrect, or “fake.”
OK, “At last, Nats are champs,” is a little breathless, but Washington – and its baseball beat reporters – have waited 96 years for a pennant.
On the other side, the Houston Chronicle’s coverage. “Not To Be” reads the headline in massive all-caps, just below the masthead. “Astros undone as Nationals clinch their first championship with 4th road win.”
The coverage offers two perspectives on the same truth. Of course, it’s biased. But bias is entirely different than one side claiming victory when it wasn’t theirs. Or claiming salaciousness, conspiracy, or omission in coverage and amplifying it into the ether.
If you cheered for the Nationals, “at last.” If you cheered for the Astros, “not to be.” Truth, facts, and perspective, all in one.
Is it possible to start with just two stories covering a single event, and use it to gain a foothold on the difference between facts, bias, and fake news? Can the World Series, for a moment, unify us under the umbrella of America’s Pastime, and shift us, ever so slightly, to make the effort to understand someone else’s perspective? To be able to detect the difference between perspective and diametric opposition?
I think it can. It starts with an Astros fan reading coverage in the Post, and a Nats fan reading coverage in the Chron. We’ll never know where it will lead unless we give it a try.
About the Author: Leigh Fatzinger is Founder and CEO of Turbine Labs (turbinelabs.com), a next-generation, AI-powered decision intelligence platform.
Fake News, Fake Anguish, Fake Debates? You Decide (Even When It’s Real, Radio, TV News and Debates Are Also Shams)
Arthur Solomon, Public Relations Consultant
So episode two of the multi-channel sham TV series mischaracterized as Democratic debates is history. And again a direct line between the president of the United States and the cable networks has been proven: Donald Trump says that every negative story about him is Fake News. As for the cable networks promoting their spectacles as debates: Also Fake News. After the first debate, Joe Biden was entirely correct when he said there’s not much you can say in 30 to 60 seconds. And the CNN debate was corroborative evidence of what the former vice-president said, as candidates were continuously cut short by the moderators.
President Donald J Trump is the master of Fake News. He makes comments about happenings that really are Fake News. And he derides true negative stories about him as Fake News. One would not be wrong to assume that this pseudo patriotic draft dodger learned from the Fake News statements made by another liar – Adolph Hitler. (Sometime when I listen to Trump’s remarks I think he’s representing the party of George Lincoln Rockwell instead of Abraham Lincoln. Not that I’m saying that Trump is a Nazi, even though he speaks Grade A Nazi fluently. But he does seem to admire tyrants and has many of their traits. And he is a population divider and is largely responsible for furthering the antagonism between different segments of our society.) Trump’s act is not new: Convince the populace that the present government is corrupt and that only he can save the country from destruction. (With a White Horse in the barn?)
A check of past president’s remarks shows that all president’s lie, mostly to advance their agendas. But Trump takes it many miles further. He lies not only to advance his agenda but to cause citizens to distrust immigrants, as well as defenders of our freedoms, like the FBI, intelligence and other governmental services and the courts. (It’s as if all the evils of mankind have escaped from Pandora’s Box and found a home in Trump’s mouth.) To his supporters Trump is a demigod. To me he’s a demagogue.
Trump is not the only disseminator of Fake News. Pay attention to the “hard news” reports on electronic media – radio and television – and you’ll see what I mean, as the producers and reporters strive to make listeners and viewers believe that they are reporting it first, accurately and completely. (Or maybe they are not trying todeceive their audiences. There’s a good case to be made that they really aren’t knowledgeable about what they report.)
A recent radio news report that caught my attention while eating breakfast on July 9 concerned New York Met’s slugger Pete Alonso’s beneficent charitable gesture. It made me put down by morning coffee and take to the computer, because as a journalist during the era when accuracy and completeness was a must for every story, more important than “getting it first,” it disturbed me. (It also disturbs my wife, when I consistently point out the inaccuracies and omissions on cable news networks’ political reporting. That means I upset her quite frequently.)
The radio reporter on WCBS said that ESPN reported Alonso would donate 10 percent of his home run derby winnings to charities, giving the impression that it was new reporting. It wasn’t. No where during the different airing of Alonso’s accomplishment that I heard during different news cycles were the words saying that Alonso said he would do that several days prior to his winning the derby. Often, I also hear news reported on this station that has been reported a few days earlier on other sites, like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, giving the impression that what the listener is hearing is new. (At least they don’t claim every report is “Breaking News” as their cable TV kin does.)
WCBS radio billboards itself as “More Than Just The Headlines.” Maybe at one time. But not today. Not since they became a quasi sports station and began carrying programming from financial advisors trying to get your business. More accurately, the station should billboard itself as “Not the entire story and not the latest news.”
But except for fanatics and people whose livelihood is associated with sports, the Alonso report was a minor blip in accurate reporting. Not so when the subject is political reporting.
As readers of my media columns know, I am not a fan of the political news delivered on the cable TV channels. I mentioned the report on WCBS radio to show how accurate and detailed reporting has largely disappeared on the electronic media and that people have to read major newspaper to get the entire story. Too often it should be obvious to political junkies who watch the cable TV networks that reporters really don’t know the details of what they are reporting. Weasel words like ‘bad optics,” “wave election,” and “playing to his base” are used by pundits and reporters instead of new detailed reporting. And when the reporters race down the hall to get a sound bite from a congressperson, they excitedly report what was said without putting the remarks in context. (Terrible reporting; good for sneaker companies.)
A prime example of the above is the overblown coverage that early on was given to a very junior congresswoman with a very limited following – Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who, with three other congresswomen, (two of whom, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, have made overtly anti-Semitic remarks that were whitewashed by the shameful Democratic leadership) have demonstrated media smarts. Thus far they have done more to ensure a second term for Trump than the entire Republican National Committee. It is cable news’ insatiable appetite for yellow journalism that has vaulted AOC from being a minor congresswoman to a media star, comparable to the destructive politics of Donald Trump.
(In a huge July 13-14 article, the Wall Street Journal reported that Britain’s Labour Party is now in crisis because of anti-Semitic sentiment in its ranks. At one time, Labour could count on the bulk of Jewish votes; now 85.6% of Jews think it condones anti-Semitism. The same could happen here to the Democratic Party if anti-Semitic sentiment in the party isn’t strongly condemned by its leaders. Jewish voters were not always a sure vote for Democrats. From 1860 until the election of President Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, Jews voted for Republican presidential candidates.)
What makes what AOC says more newsworthy than others in Congress is not the substance of her comments, which are inflammatory and separatist, rather than unifying. It’s cable news’ appetite for making every ripple in the ocean seem like a tsunami in order to stir the pot and gain audience. (And they usually succeed in doing so to the detriment of the American political system.)AOC’s “caucus” of four has as much support among Democrats in Congress as Rep. Justin Amash has among Republican House members. (I’ve been politically left of the Democratic National Committee on many issues, even before I was old enough to vote. But if AOC and her “schismists” are the future of the party, count me out. Full Disclosure: I’m a registered independent who usually votes, but not always, Democratic.)
What personally irks me about the cable coverage given to AOC and her three congresswomen is that they are always referred to as “the progressives,” intimating that every other member of the Democratic caucus is moderate to conservative. Ridiculous and misleading. But that is to be expected from cable TV political reporting.
What the above has to do with the Democratic debates is everything. If not for the insatiable appetites of the cable channels to make every pebble seem like the Rocky Mountains, AOC and her band’s remarks and the comments by the presidential hopefuls on the debate stages wouldn’t even make the front page of many newspapers. (Nor they should. They’re nothing but pre-rehearsed sound bites that have no relevancy to what the winning candidate will say on the campaign trail.)
During the first sound-bite NBC News debate in June, Sen. Kamala Harris borrowed the deck of cards from AOC and attacked front-runner Joe Biden for saying publicly that in order to get meaningful legislation years ago he worked with members of the Senate, (whose philosophy he disagreed with). The remarks of Ms. Harris, Sen. Cory Booker and AOC remind me of someone saying, “If you don’t do it my way, I’m going to take my ball and go home.” But the home isn’t theirs. In this case, the “home” is the White House, and Donald Trump is likely to renew the lease for an additional four years because of their actions. (AOC, in particular, implies that anyone who disagrees with her is a racist, which in itself is a racist outlook on life. Of course, AOC, Harris and Booker don’t directly accuse individuals, like Biden and Nancy Pelosi, of being racists. Instead they tar them by innuendo.)
As a political junkie, whose first job in public relations was with a political PR firm, where I worked on local, statewide and national campaigns, including the presidential level, I’ve seen the Harris, Booker and AOC act before. It’s reminiscent of the 1950s GOP performances starring Sen. Joe McCarthy, who accused individuals of being a Communist without specifically naming them as Communists and without proof to back up his allegations.
What has largely been under reported is that recently AOC has been sued twice in federal court for blocking negative comments about her political positions from her tweeter account, even though she uses it for policy statements. A federal appeals panel ruled against President Trump for the same reason, saying doing so violated the Constitution. (It appears that the president and AOC have a few things in common: Thin skin, a limited view of free speech and disagreeing with George Orwell’s quote, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” But AOC and Trump seem to believe that free speech only applies to speech they say or agree with.
After listening to comments from the president and the congresswoman, it’s my opinion that Trump has a racist, White Supremacy agenda and AOC has a People of Color agenda, along with Harris and Booker. What’s needed are political leaders who advocate a What’s Good for All Americans agenda, regardless of race or ethnicity.
Sen. Harris’ pre-rehearsed performance during the first debate is a prime example why I say the debates are shams. Instead of cutting her off and reminding her that the candidates were supposed to discuss current issues, the moderators let her supposedly anguished attack on Biden go on uninterrupted. Good television. Bad for viewers who wanted to learn about the candidates position on current issues.
The performances by Harris and Booker, during and after the first debate, and the comments by AOC and her minuscule band of followers in Congress, make me wonder if they forgot who the enemy is. It’s not Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi. It’s Donald Trump. (Or maybe their quest for power is more important to them than who wins in 2020. I’ve long believed that some cable TV talent that is violently anti-Trump in their commentary secretly wishes he wins reelection, which would give them another four years of tailor made commentary. I wonder if AOC would rather burn the House down and see the present Democratic leadership fall victims to a Trump victory so she can lead a coup)
Trump won the presidency in 2016 because of the economic instability (and racist sentiment?) in three normally Democratic states. After the June debate, his approval margin has increased because the debaters largely ignored bread and butter topics and instead agreed with the far left agenda of its party that is driven by four novice media savvy congresswomen. The presidential hopefuls seemed to forget that there is more to America than illegal immigrant rights.
Was the July 30 and 31 so-called debate on CNN any better than NBC’s June sound-bite telecast of presidential wannabes? Maybe for CNN, but not for the good of the Democratic Party or political discourse in general.
Instead of coming together and forming a strategy to defeat Trump, the ego-driven participants still seemingly haven’t learned the basics of a successful presidential political campaign. Instead of each performing as if they were the only person who can save the country, Democrats should become more pragmatic and accept the reality that only winners have the ability to create change. And that when selecting a presidential candidate, electability should be the only consideration. (That’s why while my heart belongs to Liz, the pragmatic side of my brain at this moment belongs to Joe)
Ever since the NBC debate, Sens. Harris and Booker have been treating Biden as if he is a pinata, trying to bust it open and have the nomination fall from his polling lead into their laps. In the second debate, they were joined by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Julian Castro and Mayor Bill de Blasio. Their continuing attacks on a much improved Biden made President Trump the clear winner of this debate.
There were two major problems with the CNN format: 1), All the leading contenders for the nomination were not on the same stage, and 2), whenever the candidates started to mix it up and truly began debating each other, the moderators yelled, the equivalent of “the bell has sounded, go to your corner.” (Also, during the debates, CNN kept dividing the candidates into “progressives” and “moderates,” as does MSNBC and other news outlets, even after one of the CNN-designated “moderates” said he was a “progressive,” proving that the CNN storyline was set in cement no matter what the candidates said. A more accurate candidate description would be to deep six the word “moderate” and replace it with “pragmatist.”)
In the days before political correctness became the norm in courteous American society, there was a joke about a Polish circular firing squad. That’s what both debates were like: Democratic candidates firing at each other. (Full disclosure: I’m of Polish heritage and the joke doesn’t offend me. Maybe that’s because I am against censorship, including the language censorship of political correctness. That doesn’t mean I approve of the use of gutter language or language that demeans others. It means I believe in the first amendment to the Constitution.)
As if cable already hasn’t reduced intelligent political coverage to the first grade level, CNN treated their TV debates as if they were a sporting event, holding a draw (on July 18) to determine which candidates will face off against each other. The production was more complicated than a Rube Goldberg cartoon, the difference being that Goldberg purposely contrived his cartoons to be overcomplicated, ridiculous and convoluted. (The draw would have been better suited for ESPN. Not only is cable TV responsible for the decline of significant political discussions, CNN has made the candidates appear as pawns in a TV game.) But CNN accomplished a near miracle with its salmagundi: It made Fox News seem respectable.
On the afternoons of the two-headed debates, CNN thought an insert of the debate venue or showing the candidates walking through the venue was newsworthy. It reminded me of cable’s coverage of O.J. Simpson’s white Bronco car chase in 2014, which continued for more than an hour without any true news value.
The hypocrisy of all the cable channels political reporting was made evident on Don Lemon’s July 18 CNN program. Lemon acknowledged that if not for the cable channels’ reporting of Trump’s racist comments at rallies, they would not get substantial coverage. Lemon said, we struggle with what to cover because we know we’re playing into Trump’s campaign strategy. But nevertheless the cable channels cover the local rallies and disseminate it nationally and discuss it on their talk shows for one reason, in my opinion: Trump’s remarks hype ratings. The cable networks said they would change how they cover Trump’s tweets and rallies after his 2016 election. They haven’t. (Maybe they’re Waiting for Godot to tell them what to do.)
A major shortcoming of all cable political analysis is that everyone on a panel must have something to say, even if their comments are rubbish and were repetitions of what were just said by other panelists. During and after Robert S. Mueller’s congressional testimony on July 24, instead of highlighting how the former special counsel continuously refuted Trump’s Fake News version of the investigation, which made page one headlines in major pubs like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, many TV pundits instead highlighted how Mueller’s demeanor had changed over the years, as if that was more important than what he said. (Is the new cable standard of what is important limited to people who come on like John Wayne in one of his Marine movie roles? What has not changed over the years are the shortcomings of cable political reporting.)
The thing that got me to put fingers to keyboard to write this column was: 1- the WCBS Radio report; 2- the alleged and mislabeled Democratic debates and 3- the questions asked to the candidates during the June and July made for TV shows. (Any resemblance to these made for TV shows and actual debates are entirely specious).
As any good novice reporter knows there is a crucial element missing from the TV political shows – follow-up questions to guests, and they were also largely missing from the June and July debates. (The lack of follow-up questions from TV political reporters – whether hosts, anchors, or the “run after the congressperson” staffers to get a sound bite – are a stain on journalism.)
Thus far, the questioning of candidates during the two debates has been less than stellar. I expect similar lame questions to be asked on September 12 and 13, when the next inappropriately-named Democratic debates are on ABC News and Univision.
There are several PR strategies in between the lines of this article that I have always followed and recommend:
When crafting sports marketing programs never use a star of the moment like Pete Alonso was for several days after the all-star game. By the time your program is completed and approved by your client Alonso will have been interviewed and reported on so frequently that whatever he would say would be considered stale news by many target media outlets. (Instead, I would use an athlete known for charitable work, with the proviso that the person has been out of the media spotlight for several years, making the person “fresh news.” I would have this individual talk about Alonso’s charitable gift but quickly transition to the unknown charitable work of other athletes. This would provide a new approach to the Alonso story and also make it much more than a sports story.)
When crafting a program, never base it on what you have heard being covered on TV or radio, or what has been printed in newspapers. Chances are that account groups at other agencies are doing the same, and if their programs are more creative, newsworthy and launched first, the chance of you receiving significant news coverage will be greatly diminished.
When crafting a program, always do original research. Never base it on what you have seen on TV news shows or read in prints pubs. Too often what is reported is just the tip of the ice burg. Even worse, many reports are wrong. (On TV, especially, wrong facts are hardly ever acknowledged and corrected. I remember it being done and explained why it happened just once, many years ago by Megan Kelly on Fox News.)
With so many research tools available only a search engine away, there is no excuse for factual mistakes by PR people. As for the mistakes by TV political reporters, it is to be expected. After all, when there is “Breaking News” every few seconds there’s little time to check on the facts. Right? About the Author: Arthur Solomon, a former journalist, was a senior VP/senior counselor at Burson- Marsteller, and was responsible for restructuring, managing and playing key roles in some of the most significant national and international sports and non-sports programs. He also traveled internationally as a media adviser to high-ranking government officials. He now is a frequent contributor to public relations publications, consults on public relations projects and is on the Seoul Peace Prize nominating committee. He can be reached at arthursolomon4pr (at) juno.com or [email protected].
Media Bias? ‘Fake News’
(Or Are Political Supporters And the Smith’s and Jones’s of the U.S. Paranoid?)
Arthur Solomon, Public Relations Consultant
There is one issue that Republicans, Democrats, independents and people who have no interest in politics should be able to agree on: Today, the claim of media bias is led by President Trump, his “see no evil, hear no evil” press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the president’s surrogates, and the right and left wings talk show media.
Another point that everyone, regardless of their political affiliations should be able to agree on is that technological advances have given a larger soapbox to allegations of media bias than ever before, but the original sin is ancient history.
Students of history should know that claims of media bias in our country dates back before the founding of the United States. Let’s face it: When Thomas Paine wrote his famous pamphlets, “Common Sense” and “The American Crisis,” there were plenty of Americans who thought the author was biased against England.
People knowledgeable about journalism, know that any reporter can write a lede and body of an article many ways without distorting any information and still be accused of bias by readers who don’t like the order of the included facts, even though the writer does not have any biases.
Today, largely because of the yellow journalism practices of cable TV commentators and journalists, both on the right and the left, virtually every report is considered biased by someone.
One example that I often relate happened when I had my first job in public relations. It was with a Republican PR firm and I worked on local, state and presidential campaigns in the days when conservative Democrats controlled Congress, (now controlled by extremist” hear no evil, see no evil, do evil” right wing Republicans, in my admitted biased opinion.)
It was in the closing days of a tight presidential election when someone almost foaming from his mouth came running in with a newspaper that had a picture of the Pope blessing a crowd. Beneath the photo was another picture and story of the Democratic candidate. “Look at this, the Pope is blessing the Democrat. You have to do something,” he shouted to the PR staff. Of course, there was nothing we could do, we explained. Moreover, we said, the newspaper in question was a strong supporter of Republican candidates; its first page had considerably more positive stories about all the GOP candidates. And the opinion columnists and editorial writers were constantly writing columns praising GOP candidates and attacking the Democrats. (Conclusion: Bias was in the eyes of this individual.)
But bias is not always an illusion – especially in political journalism.
On cable TV, it’s easy to recognize bias. (An easy way to determine bias is to hear the commentary of Fox TV opinion commentators and compare what they say to Fox’s hard news reporters. Then you decide what’s fair and balanced.)
In print journalism, it can be more difficult for readers to decipher.
Below are several facets of print journalism that cause readers to claim bias:
The placement of stories: Bias accusers believe that negative stories regarding their candidates are placed on page one while negative articles about candidates they dislike are buried on page 34. Assignment of stories: Bias accusers believe reporters are only assigned to look for negative stories about candidates the accusers prefer. Length of stories: The length of stories, not the news value in them, is a sign of bias by accusers. Quotes: Always a sore point by people who see bias. Who was quoted, how long was the quote and the placement of it in a story are questioned.
But the use of photos and headlines in hard news stories are two of the easiest ways to determine bias in journalism.
Photos: Bias accusers believe that the determining factor of which pictures are used shows the bias of the selecting editor. In this case, they may be correct. (The advent of color photographs in newspapers added a new claim by people who see bias in every editorial decision. Pictures of candidates in color are obviously selected to show who the editors prefer, the bias ghost hunters feel.) Headlines, Pictures and Stories: The way they are written is a sure sign of bias, according to some people, including me. An example is a New York Times story on October 13, 2018, with a four column headline reading, “Israeli Forces Kill 7 Palestinians in Gaza Border Clashes.” A pull-out read,” A death toll of about 200 Palestinians in six months of protests.” A few days later, on October 18, a Times story was headlined, “After Rocket Hits House, Israel Strikes Gaza Sites.” That shows there isn’t any bias, because both Israel and the Palestinians were blamed in separate stories, a person might say. Not so fast, Charley. The second story had a three column picture of a wailing Palestinian mother whose child was killed during the Israeli response. (If the headline and pull-out doesn’t provide a biased opinion in the initial story, which could have been written and headlined many different ways, and a three column picture of the distraught Palestinian family in the second article does not show bias I don’t know what does.) Then, on October 30, the Times ran a story titled “Thousands Mourn 3 Palestinian Boys Killed in Israeli Airstrike.” This story was accompanied by a huge five column picture showing the three victims.
Another image was captioned, “Palestinian protesters in Gaza on Monday protected their faces from tear gas fired by Israeli troops.” The problem with this picture was that no where could you see the tear gassing described in the picture. It wasn’t until the fourteenth paragraph that the story said, “Gaza militants fired nearly 40 rockets into southern Israel between Friday night and Saturday morning, and the Israeli Air Force retaliated with strikes on more than 90 unmanned militant targets in Gaza.” The following graph detailed rocket fire, incendiary balloons and mortar fire from Gaza causing hundreds of fires in Israel. Another example that provides a good case for people claiming that the New York Times is biased in its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian situation: In its November 12, 2018, edition, a story was headlined, “Deadly Israeli Gaza Raid Threatens New Cease-Fire.” The article was accompanied with a photo captioned, in part, “An Israeli tank in October.”
A few days ago, in its April 29, 2019, paper, the New York Times ran a story headlined, “Times Apologizes for Printing Anti-Semitic Cartoon,” which was widely condemned internationally. This was followed by several days of mea culpa articles and the Times publisher saying the paper will update its bias training to include anti-Semitism. (Question: Did the publisher just wake up from a Rip Van Winkle snooze to acknowledge the rise of anti-Semitism?)
The Times has long been accused of being biased against Israel in its reporting. (Media bias, of course, is subjective, especially when the subject is politics). On Holocaust Remembrance Day, Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, called the paper “a cesspool of hostility” While I disagree with Dermer’s choice of words, I do think the entire scope of how the Times covers the Israeli-Palestinian situation deserves to be reviewed by the Times publisher.
Also, anti Israel bias by CNN was evident on Saturday. When reporting about rockets from Gaza being launched into Israel, followed by an Israeli response, one of the CNN headlines said, “Baby & Mother killed in Israeli Airstrike.” A more accurate headline would have been, “Israeli responds to rocket attacks from Gaza.”
Burying the news: This tactic is perhaps the one most used and it is largely inefficient. An example of what I consider overt media bias resulted from a major report saying that global warming will result in an economic loss in the United States as well as threatening the planet. The report, which contradicted the political position of President Trump, received major coverage in prominent print pubs and on cable television, the exception being Fox, which has turned into a public relations agency for the president. The White House attempted to lessen its media coverage by releasing the report on Black Friday, resulting in media reporting saying the president was trying to reduce coverage.
While most cases of bias in reporting from major newspapers are unfounded, bias does exist, especially when reporting on hot button issues, like the ones described above and below. (In some cases the way articles are headlined, written and presented with pictures are deliberately biased. But in most cases, I believe, bias is in the eyes of the readers because they don’t like stories they disagree with, even if they are 100% accurate.)
Any fair-minded person who pays even scant attention to the political scene knows that there is bias in the coverage of President Trump by the so-called mainstream media (as there is bias against Democrats by the right wing media). But the question is which came first? Trump claiming that the mainstream media was treating him unfairly, or the media responding to his claims of “fake news.” As a close observer of the political news scene and the once daily White House press briefings, I side with the media, which riled Trump and his spokespeople by consistently correcting their false claims. (But I also believe that many of the TV pundits that continually attack Trump secretly wish that he’ll be reelected next year because if he is defeated they’ll have nothing to talk about but hurricanes, killings and fires.)
In our business, I’ve heard many practitioners, whose job it is to place stories or gain TV interviews, claim that the reporters must have a bias because “my pitches” are always turned down.”
It’s true that some reporters look more favorably on some PR people than others. (All humans have favorites.) But that is largely because the journalists knows they can trust the person not to provide inaccurate, incomplete, false information or fudge facts and, just as importantly, don’t waste reporter’s time by pitching fluff instead of solid stories that work for both the client and the reporter.
About the Author: Arthur Solomon, a former journalist, was a senior VP/senior counselor at Burson- Marsteller, and was responsible for restructuring, managing and playing key roles in some of the most significant national and international sports and non-sports programs. He also traveled internationally as a media adviser to high-ranking government officials. He now is a frequent contributor to public relations publications, consults on public relations projects and is on the Seoul Peace Prize nominating committee. He can be reached at arthursolomon4pr (at) juno.com or artsolomon4pr (at) optimum.net.
Move over Fake News: A New Tool to Spot Fake Engagement
David Diaz, Director, Davenport Laroche
New marketing tool Like-Wise was launched this week, and parent company Social Chain Group claims that the service will held firms identify how much of an influencers engagement is genuine- and how much of it is fake.
According to Social Chain Group, brands are typically defrauded of up to 96% of what they spend on individual media influencers, meaning this emerging marketing tool- once considered a silver bullet- might have a darker underbelly than previously thought.
Like-Wise collects data from the internet’s largest engagement bot farms, building a database of the tens of millions of fake profiles which seek to recreate engagement behavior by liking and commenting on social media posts.
At present, most monitors of an influencer’s efficacy will look at a user’s “engagement per post”. Bots, and their fraudster overlords, however, can game this system by selling or buying likes, views, and stock-standard comments.
When suspicious activity on an influencer’s page is identified by the Like-Wise tool, artificial intelligence technology is used to peg their engagement against organic engagement by human beings to root out bot behavior. It even understands the difference between paid promotion, shout-outs and other algorithmic outcomes, says Social Chain Group.
The tool has already been trialed with several major brands, unearthing one faux influencer as having a fake engagement rate of 96%. The user in question, labelled by Social Chain Group with the pseudonym “Jess”, charges $1,000 per post for her more than 20 clients- some of which include major high street brands.
Indeed, Social Chain Group has audited more than 10,000 influencers frequently called on by brands and agencies to promote products or services in various social media campaigns. According to the agency, Like-Wise indicates that more than one quarter of influencers have engaged in some kind of manipulation or fraud to boost their engagement claims.
Even so, growing concerns over influencer fraud are doing little to curb the growth of the industry. The size of the global influencer landscape is expected to grow to $2.38 billion by the end of 2019, doubling in size since it was recorded at $1.07 billion in 2017.
According to Steve Bartlett, founder and CEO of Social Chain Group, brands must be on their guard more than ever. “There are literally thousands of influencers who are making a full- time living out of creating the appearance of having a big audience, when in several cases 95% of their engagement is fake,” he says, “In real terms, you’re paying $1,000 to get 1,000 people to act, but really if I only get 50 people to act I’m stealing $950. When we went through how frequent it is, it’s incredible. Some of these people belong in prison because what they’re doing is fraud.”
As PR pros wise up to the shadows of the influencer marketing model, the prevalence of fraud will no doubt drop. In the meantime, however, the world of influencer marketing is still very much the wild west.
Fake News? Here Are Three Things To Look Out For
Ronn Torossian, CEO, 5WPR
Hurricane Florence has made landfall in North Carolina, Cameroon’s Presidential polls open next month, and US-North Korea relations may be heating back up. It is more pertinent than ever to be able to sift through a daily bombardment of information online to find news worthy of your attention; it is even harder to tell which of it is true.
Only fools rush in. Here are three things to look out for if you’re not sure what you’re reading really is “fake news”.
1. Fake Profiles
Following any major news event, particularly tragedies, photo collages are becoming de rigueur across allsocial media platforms as a means to draw attention to possibly missing persons. They are usually accompanied by comments like “spread the word” and “share to help find these people”.
Many of these, however, are fake: created by people looking for social media engagement and shared, typically, by well- meaning people hoping to help. An example of this is 12-year- old Australian student, included in a collage of victims following the Manchester Ariana Grande concert bombing in the UK. She was safe, and in school, at the time of the bombing, and was quick to debunk the collage post. Criminals can also have a fake profile shared. Following the Santa Fe High School shooting in Texas, tensions were running high as the national gun debate was revived for another year. The suspect, who had killed ten people and injured another ten, was eventually identified, and fake Facebook profiles with his name and photo were created across the world.
2. Wrong place, wrong time
The internet seems to grow exponentially with each passing second, with content added and uploaded in increasing volumes by the year. Over time, this means the internet has grown into a strange database of photos and videos, often uploaded and shared with barely any context or obvious time stamp.
This leaves much content open to interpretation- and misuse. A Visual Social Media Lab study found that more than a third of “problematic” photos online are actually real photos, just presented out of context.
During the Thai cave rescue operation earlier this year, for example, a film clip of a cave diver swimming through the twists and turns of a narrow cave passage was shared widely on social media, with posts claiming to be showing rescue divers. The actual origin of the footage, however, was a cave dive in Wisconsin- in 2012.
3. Photo, audio and video manipulation
This last one should be an obvious one, but with the rapid- fire evolution of editing technologies, it is becoming increasingly difficult to discern between true and false. Gone are the days of grainy images of the Loch Ness Monster, or “is that just a man in a suit” glimpses of Bigfoot. Today, video, sound and image manipulation is reaching new levels, opening a whole new world of confusion with “deep fakes”. Most fake news is generated by users seeking clicks and shares, with accuracy as a last consideration. If you see something you’re not sure about, try searching for exact keywords in the story. Someone may have already debunked it. Most importantly, be critical, and choose your news sources carefully.
About the Author: Ronn Torossian is CEO of 5WPR, a leading PR firm.
Not Fake News: FINRA 2018 Priorities
Elin Cherry, CEO, Elinphant Adaptions and “CliffsNotes” version of FINRA 2018 Priorities.
All opinions are my views and do not necessarily reflect FINRA guidance. My recommendations offer proactive advice to address FINRA priorities in anticipation of a FINRA examination, sweep letter or inquiry.
I adjus ted the topic struc ture to empha size the prior ities that I believe are newer, difficult to address or are more timely. I prioritized based on the current federal administration’s focus on reducing regulations, as well as the recent DJIA records.
“There is some laxity coming,” Mr. (Barney) Frank said. “Some bank regulators are probably more willing to trust the banks not to get in trouble. But the rules to prevent them from getting in trouble will still be there.”Trump Leads Deregulatory Charge. Hence, FINRA’s priorities may not be enforced as they were in the past, but the regulations will still be there.
For some, the recent record-setting market highs are beginning to indicate a coming market correction. Seeking Alpha compares the current markets to Alan Greenspan’s “Irrational Exuberance” The Greatest Bubble Ever. If a significant market correction occurs, market integrity and financial operational rules will be back into focus as they were after the bear market of 2007 – 2009. Therefore, the order of priorities I’ll discuss in this blog post are: Operational and Financial Risk, Market Integrity, Fraud, Sales Practices, and High-Risk Firms and Brokers.
The themes of the 2018 FINRA priorities are: trend technology, data integrity, cybersecurity, effective controls and cross market surveillance.
Operational and Financial Risks
FINRA Commentary Recommended Action Liquidity Risk Their focus is on Note that FINRA will be comparing firms’ liquidity liquidity planning, planning. Will this be done in examinations and/or strengths and weaknesses sweep letters? At least ensure that your plan meets across firms, as well as the elements laid out in Regulatory Notice 15-33. adequacy of stress testing. FINRA will also consider whether the scenarios are consistent with its collateral resources and client activity. Customer Protection and Verification of Assets Are you testing data and formulas? When was the last and Liabilities time you looked at financial reporting data FINRA always reviews integrity? Does some of your reporting rely on firms’ net capital and multiple system feeds, manual entries or reserve computations. spreadsheets? Consider vendor solutions that can This year they will consolidate this data and remove manual processes. If focus on data integrity you have been using the same vendor for years, and accuracy as well as perhaps consider newer and more adept solutions (ones controls and that can manage financials across market platforms). supervision. They will also zero in on securities held by foreign custodians. Cybersecurity It’s not news, but Attend FINRA’s Cybersecurity Conference: cybersecurity is still I’m a fan of consistency, if applicable. For business an emphasis for FINRA continuity planning and cybersecurity, and all regulators. a firm will take many similar actions for both. When What’s more interesting possible, use the same action. This helps not only is that FINRA will when updating policies, but when carrying out drills review for suspicious or unfortunately, responding to an event. activity reports (SARs) filed for cybersecurity breaches. Technology Review every system for testing capabilities prior to Governance production. Testing environments can be expensive, so Change management how do you test without a testing environment? Can policies and procedures you test in controlled productions? In terms of for information unauthorized access, consider a technology solution technology becomes more to ensure that access is regularly updated. Relying germane every year. on a manual process, such as managers reviewing Firms should maintain access annually, is risky. strong controls to prevent inaccurate, incomplete, untested or unauthorized changes to production environments. Business Continuity Planning Take heed of global warming and update your natural Hurricanes Harvey and disaster business continuity plan. Do you review your Maria were a lesson for plan for terrorism threats? Terrorist tactics Texas and Puerto Rico continue to evolve, and those changes should be member firms to review incorporated into your plan. Your systems and their plans. FINRA personnel should be categorized correctly to identify reminds firms to make mission critical functions during any emergency. their plans reasonable and operational. Anti-Money A Brief History of AML Categorization in FINRA Annual Laundering Priorities Letter: FINRA continues to find 2018 – Operational and Financial Risks deficiencies in firms’ 2017 – Operational Risk anti-money laundering 2016 – Supervision and Risk Management (AML) programs. FINRA is 2015 – Sales Practice targeting, detecting and 2014 – Business Conduct reporting suspicious AML 2013 – Business Conduct activity. FINRA is 2012 – Not listed as a priority interested in Notice that AML changed from a conduct risk to an surveillance of accounts operational risk. AML is no longer viewed as a sales opened for affiliates, problem, but a systems problem (controls and and accounts used in monitoring). Keep this in mind when reviewing and connection with updating your program. Also consider the specific security-backed lines of training required for technologists and operational credit (SBLOC). employees, that is different than salesperson training. What action has your firm taken to address the new beneficiary rule? And if you are the Head of AML, why would you accept a rubber stamp independent test? With personal liability on the line, and of course the firm’s interest in mind, encourage your firm to invest in quality independent testing. Short Sales Confirm that the stated fees in your policies and Review your short sales procedures are the actual fees you charge. If policies and procedures compliance is not responsible for short sale fees, and monitor your fees. coordinate with operations.
Market Integrity
FINRA Commentary Recommended Action Fixed Income Order and trade management systems for all fixed Data Integrity income securities need to be automated. Manually Data integrity is a entering trades into systems that may or may not priority for fixed connect to the back office are no longer acceptable. income surveillance and TRACE data by nature is more difficult to report. trading (as it is with Firms need to automate fixed income orders and all trading, trades, not only for data integrity, but also for surveillance, financial best execution reviews. reporting and books and records). In conjunction with Treasury securities reporting to TRACE, FINRA developed a suite of data integrity programs to monitor firms’ transaction reporting in Treasury securities. Manipulation Your equity order management system (OMS) Cross market surveillance can no longer be the firm’s only trade surveillance is the new surveillance tool. Manual data, accurate data and buzz phrase. FINRA is data transparency are all significant obstacles to looking at market creating a cross market surveillance system. While manipulation across all Fintech and Regtech vendors are working to address products and markets. this cross market requirement, it has proven difficult to create software with the ability to ingest, digest and produce reliable surveillance from cross market activity. Firms should continue to monitor Regtech solutions that can handle cross market surveillance concerns. Alternative Trading System Surveillance FINRA continues to develop and improve on its FINRA will review surveillance systems that create alerts. Firms can alternative trading expect to see more regulatory inquiries, and they systems’ supervisory should be able to detect these alerts prior to abilities for FINRA’s detection. surveillance alerts related to potential manipulative activity. Options As with all other market integrity categories, the FINRA has developed a theme is market surveillance. FINRA expects firms to surveillance to detect discover potentially fraudulent behavior before they potential front running do. in correlated options products and will remain focused on this area. If there’s a market correction, you don’t want to be Regulation SHO caught with your “shorts down.” Check your short sale Once again FINRA is procedures. Review your automated controls and ensure emphasizing Reg SHO. that they’re effective. Demonstrate that you have tested and reviewed your process and systems. Ensure that you’ve done your annual review. Have you Market Access actually tested your policies, or just drafted them? FINRA will continue to In our recent experience, trader limits as well as review market access annual market access testing, are weaknesses for many policies, procedures and firms. In the case of a market disruption, lacking controls. market access controls could be detrimental to a firm’s financial stability.
Best Execution How often does your best execution committee meet? Do FINRA is expanding its your best execution reviews contain relevant equity best execution information that can be deciphered, or are exceptions surveillance program to like finding a needle in a haystack? If you utilize a assess the degree to vendor, when is the last time they tested the system? which firms provide Are they able to respond in a timely manner to price improvement when questions on exceptions or data? Make sure that routing or internalizing you’re monitoring and supervising your best execution customer orders. reporting vendor. Fraud Update your AML program and training to include Firms should submit a reporting of illicit activity involving the senior SAR for illicit activity investor exploitation. If you already specify certain involving exploitation types of suspicious activity within your of senior investors. policies/training, include ‘defrauding senior FINRA will continue to investors.’ Most importantly, ensure that your review schemes targeting monitoring section references potential AML senior investors. responsibilities. Review the FINRA 2017 examination and priorities letter and ensure you’ve implemented the referenced controls in your compliance program.
Sales Practice Risks
FINRA Commentary Recommended Action Understand how cryptocurrencies, their exchanges and their futures operate, behave and interact. Determine your firm’s activity. Are your customers investing in Initial Coin Offerings cryptocurrencies directly through your firm? Are your (“ICOs”) and Cryptocurrencies sales people advising your customers on the purchase FINRA will continue monitoring developments in this cryptocurrency and sales of cryptocurrencies? Is your firm capital and ICOs, and refer ICO concerns to the SEC. protected in case of severe volatility of cryptocurrency futures? Have you monitored and reviewed funds being sold to determine whether they include cryptocurrencies?
Use of Margin FINRA will examine whether firms and Review margin disclosures. Have they perhaps “fallen registered representatives have off” documents or are the outdated? Test your margin adequately disclosed the risk of surveillance to ensure its correctly calibrated. margin loans, and have controls in place to prevent excessive margin trading. Securities Backed Lines of Credit FINRA will review sales practices and Ensure trade and operations surveillance are operational obligations applying to coordinated to identify improper use of SBLOCs, as SBLOCs. These reviews will consider well as concentration levels. new tax obligations as well as a potential market downturn. Suitability As they do every year, FINRA will Bottom line, don’t swindle your customers. Sell good continue to assess firms’ adequacy of products at reasonable prices and disclose how your controls to meet their suitability firm profits. Senior investors, complex products, DOL obligations. fiduciary rule, fee disclosures and reasonableness are FINRA reinforced new product reviews all reviewed under FINRA suitability regulations. as well as complex product training.
High-Risk Firms and Brokers FINRA will continue to review If you haven’t automated employee trading and outside controls for outside brokerage business activities, you need to! It’s street activities. Hiring and supervisory practice, regulatory expectation and less expensive practices related to high-risk than manual reviews. Good practice is to require activities and brokers will continue outside business activities to be reviewed by as a focus, as will selling employees annually, but also supervisors should review speculative products. all past approvals annually. Just as you did before, monitor your high-risk brokers and activities and surveille speculative and complex products.
Conclusion & Top 8 Pieces of Advice
FINRA provided its annual roadmap on what to expect when you’re expecting a FINRA inquiry. The takeaway is data integrity and system controls. FINRA is also continuing to increase the number of compliance tools for firms. Take a look at FINRA Tools. I highlighted the FINRA tools initiative in FINRA: How to Ace the Exam.
Our top 8 pieces of advice:
1. Read the FINRA 2018 Priorities Letter. 2. Identify the topics affecting your firm. 3. Review each identified topic and document the review. 4. Read the 2017 Report on Examination Findings: 5. Consider Robert Cooks’ Cover Letter. 6. Attend the FINRA Cybersecurity Conference 7. Ensure FINRA report cards are included in WSPs and are reviewed on a regular basis. 8. Review FINRA Rules to be implemented in 2018.
About the Author: Elin is the CEO Elinphant, a financial compliance consulting firm. In her current role, Elin leads a team of seasoned compliance officers who are skilled and knowledgeable in relation to each client’s business and needs. She believes that clients are best served by employing skilled professionals to execute on projects and is known for looking at compliance challenges as well as marketing and sales in an innovative and direct manner. Elin possesses deep experience in compliance programs, regulatory relations, testing and monitoring, compliance audits and capital markets, among others. Elinphant has advised as well implemented Compliance Programs in start-up financial and FinTech Firms.
Prior to founding Elinphant, Elin was a Principal and the Head of Capital Markets at Compliance Risk Concepts, (“CRC”). In that role, she grew a book of business generating half a million dollars in revenue. Elin was charged with relationship management and the execution of client mandates as well as hiring and managing consultants. Elin marketed the firm through articles, blogs, speaking engagements. Prior to CRC, Elin was Director and Head of Business Unit Compliance, for CIT Group Inc. In this role, she was a member of the Compliance senior management team with responsibility for the US business compliance programs, business unit compliance officers, broker-dealer compliance, as well as the CIT Bank team. Elin was also employed with Societe Generale for six years, serving as Managing Director, Head of Global Markets Compliance and Deputy Director to the Chief Compliance Officer. Further, she served in senior compliance roles at Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. and Banc of America Securities. Elin brings strong leadership skills and experience that benefit our Compliance team.
Elin holds a J.D. from the University of Denver College of Law and received her B.A., cum laude, from the University of Colorado. #6 MOST-READ REPORT in 2017: Does Fake News Impact Your PR & Communications?
Welcome to the world of fake news. This world is not simply a world where reporting inaccuracies occur periodically, or an editor fails to catch a mistake. This world has a purpose. Within the last 12 months the communicators and journalists we all rely on to help drive message points for public relations have faced a paradigm shift. This shift involves purpose driven campaigns of fake news; news that has been crafted to mislead or falsely report.
For the public relations professional, or corporate communicator, this additional layer of potential news can at least obscure their messages, and at worst trigger a PR crisis of the greatest magnitude. Arguably, it could mean the difference in a presidential election, or misdirect funds needed for disaster relief. Fake news is potentially a new form of journalism, not one of error or omission, but rather professionally crafted messages… messages that are have a nefarious purpose.
So how will you manage your public relations efforts in the world of fake news? How will you reliably measure the impact of your paid, earned, shared, or owned messages in a world where fake news may obscure your communication outcomes? These are the issues my team has addressed in this white paper. Clearly, we can’t cover all the issues that could impact your PR campaign, but this paper will hopefully get you started down a path of planned management in the world of fake news.
In the end, I want to extend my company to you as a resource for monitoring and measuring your PR efforts in the world of fake news. Whether you are a client, or ever become a client, doesn’t impact our availability to answer your questions. We are happy to help in any way we can, even if that is to simply hear what your concerns are.
Thank you for downloading this paper.
REGISTER FOR THE NEW WHITEPAPER
First Name* Last Name*
Title
Company*
Email*
Phone
#1 MOST-VIEWED EVENT in 2017: The Death of Trust: Real News, “FAKE NEWS,” and the Cyber Plots Designed to Divide Us
Free Livestream, On-Demand Video
Webinar Overview
The confluence of legitimate news versus phony news, plus the proliferation of nation-state and criminal cyber plots all aimed at disrupting democracy and destabilizing trusted institutions, leave journalists and communicators struggling to separate fact from fiction and maintain credibility with increasingly jaded citizens and consumers.
If communications professionals can no longer trust the information we receive, how is our civil society supposed to function?
Please join us to hear our forum participants grapple with these questions and others.
Is there such a thing as “fake news” and how do we recognize it? What is the extent of the threat? What are the business and political implications? What are the new rules of communications? How do brands manage in a post-trust environment? What is the role of the corporation and CEO, the CMO, the agency professional, and the journalist in this brave new world? What is the role of Silicon Valley and the FAANG companies who influence so much of our news?
Moderator
Mark J. Rozell Dean The Schar School of Policy and Government | George Mason University
Mark J. Rozell is the author of nine books and editor of twenty books on various topics in U.S. government and politics including the presidency, religion and politics, media and politics, and interest groups in elections. His latest books are:
Catholics and U.S. Politics after the 2016 Elections: Understanding the “Swing” Vote. New York: Palgrave/MacMillan Press, 2017 (edited with Blandine Chelini-Pont and Marie Gayte).
God at the Grass Roots, 2016: The Christian Right in American Elections. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017 (edited with Clyde Wilcox).
Religion and the American Presidency. New York: Palgrave/MacMillan Press, 2017 (revised and updated 3rd edition) (edited with Gleaves Whitney).
The New Politics of the Old South: An Introduction to Southern Politics (revised and updated sixth edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017 (edited with Charles S. Bullock III).
The President’s Czars: Undermining Congress and the Constitution. University Press of Kansas, 2012 (with Mitchel A. Sollenberger).
The Oxford Handbook of Southern Politics. Oxford University Press, 2012 (edited with Charles S. Bullock III).
Interest Groups in American Campaigns: The New Face of Electioneering (3rd edition). Oxford University Press, 2012 (with Michael Franz and Clyde Wilcox).
Executive Privilege: Presidential Power, Secrecy and Accountability (3rd edition). University Press of Kansas, 2010.
He has testified before Congress on several occasions on executive privilege issues and has lectured extensively in the U.S. and abroad. In recent years he has lectured in Austria, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Italy, Poland, Sweden, Turkey, and Vietnam.
Dean Rozell writes frequent op-ed columns in such publications as the Washington Post, Baltimore Sun, New York Daily News, and Politico. He is often asked to comment about his areas of expertise for print and broadcast media. He may be reached at [email protected] or 703-993-8171.
Panel
Richard Levick CEO LEVICK
Under his leadership, LEVICK has set new standards in global communications and brand protection for corporations, countries, and major institutions. Mr. Levick is one of the communications industry’s most important spokespersons and thought leaders.
A powerful advocate for the strategic initiatives that companies must pursue in today’s perilous environment, he regularly addresses corporate boards as well as industry and government leaders around the world, providing guidance on their most complex communications and reputation management challenges. He is featured in, and authors, countless articles, and is a frequent guest on prime time national and international television programs.
Mr. Levick is a much-sought after keynote and graduation speaker and is a columnist for the top business blogs including Forbes.
Mr. Levick has co-authored five books including,The Communicators: Leadership in the Age of Crisis; Stop the Presses; The Crisis and Litigation PR Desk Reference; 365 Marketing Meditations; and Lessons for Absent Children.
Carol E. Lee National Political Reporter NBC News
Carol E. Lee is a national political reporter for NBC News. She previously covered the White House for The Wall Street Journal where she was responsible for theJournal ’s White House coverage, including politics, foreign affairs and domestic policy issues. She also served as president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, after serving on its board since 2010.
She also appears regularly on television and radio, including CNN, MSNBC, NPR and Sirius XM, as a commentator with insight on the White House.
She has covered the White House since October 2008. She joined the Journal as White House Correspondent in 2011. Previously, she covered the White House for Politico, starting with President Obama’s transition in Chicago.
Ms. Lee moved to Washington after covering politics in Florida for three years, including the 2008 presidential campaign.
She is a graduate of New York University’s school of journalism and lives in Washington with her son, Hudson.
Ray Locker Washington Enterprise Editor USA Today
Ray Locker is the Washington enterprise editor for USA TODAY, where he supervises the reporters who cover the White House, Pentagon, health care and money in politics. He also coordinates much of investigative work in the organization’s Washington bureau. He has also been the paper’s White House and politics editor and national security editor in the 12 years since joining USA TODAY in 2005. He is the author of Nixon’s Gamble: How a President’s Own Secret Government Destroyed His Administration, which was published in 2015, and the upcoming Haig’s Coup, to be released next year. Before joining USA TODAY, he ran the Associated Press bureau in Sacramento and was an editor and reporter at the Los Angeles Times, Tampa Tribune and Montgomery Advertiser. He and his family live in North Bethesda, Md.
Sam Stein Politics Editor The Daily Beast
Sam Stein is the Politics Editor at The Daily Beast, based in Washington, D.C. Previously he served as Politics Editor for the Huffington Post and has worked for Newsweek magazine, the New York Daily News and the investigative journalism group Center for Public Integrity. He is a regular guest and contributor to MSNBC. He has a masters from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and is a graduate of Dartmouth College.
Jackie Calmes White House Editor Los Angeles Times
Jackie Calmes is the White House editor for the Los Angeles Times Washington bureau.
Calmes joined the LA Times from The New York Times where she worked as a national correspondent covering the 2014 midterm elections. She joined the Times in August 2008, and was a White House correspondent. Previously she had been chief political correspondent for The Wall Street Journal‘s Washington bureau. During her 18 years atThe Wall Street Journal, Ms. Calmes covered the White House and Congress, focusing mostly on budget and tax legislation, and also reported on congressional and presidential election campaigns as well as issues confronting state and local governments.
From mid-1997 to mid-1999, she was one of the Journal’s two White House correspondents, and in 1999-2000, she covered national politics and the Bush campaign. After the 2000 presidential recount, she covered election reform and politics, and in June 2001, she became a news editor for the Journal‘s “Politics and Policy” page, and took over as writer and a reporter of the well-known “Washington Wire” column in Friday’s Journal. She returned to full-time reporting in late 2002, and through 2004 was again a White House correspondent.
In May 2005, Ms. Calmes was awarded the Gerald R. Ford Journalism Prize for Reporting on the Presidency.
Ms. Calmes began her journalism career in 1978 at the Abilene (Texas) Reporter-News. In 1979, she went to the Austin, Texas, capital bureau of Harte-Hanks Newspapers and in 1981 joined the Austin bureau of the Dallas Morning News. She worked for the Congressional Quarterly from 1984 until 1990, except for 1988 when she worked in the Washington bureau of the Atlanta Constitution and Cox Newspapers Inc.
A native of Toledo, Ohio, Ms. Calmes earned a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Toledo and a master’s degree in journalism from Northwestern University. She is most proud of her two daughters, Sarah and Carrie, neither of whom wants to be a journalist.
Bruce P. Mehlman Founder Mehlman, Castagnetti, Rosen & Thomas
With over two decades experience in public policy, business and the law, Bruce helps clients understand, anticipate and navigate the public policy environment through the bipartisan public affairs company he founded, Mehlman Castagnetti. Bruce is widely-regarded as an expert in running coalitions, quarterbacking issue campaigns and managing C-suite associations, bringing innovative approaches and relentless execution to achieve impactful outcomes.
Bruce is a frequent op-ed writer and highly sought after speaker on policy and political trends, regularly keynoting business conferences and strategic planning sessions. He concurrently runs the Technology CEO Council and serves as founding co-chairman of the Internet Innovation Alliance.
Bruce previously served as Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Technology Policy, having been nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in May 2001. He also worked as a senior leadership aide in the House of Representatives and as general counsel to a national political party committee.
Recognized as one of Washington’s “top lobbyists” by Washingtonian Magazine and The Hill newspaper, Bruce also serves on the advisory boards of start-up companies FiscalNote, iHealth Engines and Market Realist. An Adjunct Professor and Board Member of The Washington Campus, Bruce teaches Executive MBA students “the business of government relations.”
Bruce received a BA degree from Princeton University and a JD from the University of Virginia Law School where he served on the Virginia Law Review. He lives with his wife and 3 children in Maryland.
A Special Thanks to Our Sponsors
‘Fake News’ Reinforces Trust in Mainstream News Brands: Hits Reputation of Social Media Sources
CommPRO Editorial Staff
Media intelligence firm Kantar Media has released the results of its global ‘Trust in News’ study.
The report reveals ‘mainstream news media’ reputation remains largely intact while social media and digital-only news platforms sustain major reputation damage as result of ‘fake news’ narratives during recent election cycles.
The survey conducted representative sample surveys of 2,000 individuals each in Brazil, France, the United Kingdom and the US.
Key findings:
1. The efforts to brand ‘mainstream news media’ as ‘fake news’ have largely failed. The reputation of traditional print and broadcast media outlets has proven more resilient than social media platforms and online only news outlets, primarily as a result of the depth of coverage being delivered.
2. Audiences are becoming more widely informed and sophisticated in their engagement with, and evaluation of, news content.
3. The public retain a belief that journalism is key to the health of democracy – but have become more skeptical. Specifically, in both in Brazil and USA, where a significant percentage of the population believe ‘fake news’ impacted the outcome of their most recent elections.
Who do we trust?
The reputational fallout of the ‘fake news’ phenomenon has been predominantly borne by social media and messaging platforms, and ‘online only’ news channels. Print magazines, at 72%, are the most trusted news source, closely followed by the other traditional outlets of print newspapers and TV and radio news. Only one in three recognize social media sites and messaging apps as a trusted news source. ‘Online only’ news outlets are trusted by half of the population, significantly less than their print and broadcast brethren. Interestingly, the online presence of print and broadcast media are trusted slightly less than the originating titles and channels. Social media and messaging platforms have sustained significant reputational damage as a source of trusted news. News coverage of politics and elections on social media platforms (among which Facebook is dominant with 84% usage in the preceding week) and messaging apps (of which Whatsapp is the most used) is ‘trusted less’ by almost sixty percent of news audiences (58% & 57% respectively) because of the ‘fake news’ phenomenon. ‘Online only’ news outlets also sustained significant reputational damage in this respect: ‘trusted less’ by 41% of news audiences. Print titles have proved more resilient, experiencing a smaller loss of trust, with print magazines and newspapers both ‘trusted less’ by 23% of audiences. However, both categories also experienced similar increases in trust in their coverage (23% and 17% respectively). Print media nets out with more than three quarters of news audiences trusting them ‘the same’ or ‘more than’ before the ‘fake news’ phenomenon. 24-hour news channels also retain a strong position as a trusted source with 78% of news audiences trusting them ‘the same’ or ‘more than’ before the ‘fake news’ narrative. Across all four surveyed countries, 46% of news audiences believe ‘fake news’ had an influence on the outcome of their most recent election. This was most pronounced in Brazil – where 69% believed fake news had an impact, and the USA where 47% believe there was an influence. There is though some recognition that companies like Facebook and Google are taking steps to tackle ‘fake news’. (13% of UK news audiences claiming to have seen efforts vs a third of Brazilians, 16% in France and 22% in the US).
News consumption habits are evolving.
The news-reading public is becoming a more widely informed audience. Forty percent of news audiences have increased the number of news sources they use compared to 12 months prior. ‘All online’ has overtaken television as the primary source of news. With under 35 year olds, social media – despite its reputational issues –almost matches television as a source of news (65% Vs 69%). The news audience is additionally becoming a more thoughtful audience. Contrary to ‘news filter bubble’ or ‘echo chamber’ narratives, we find 40% of social media users explore alternate views to their own and almost two thirds worry that ‘personalization’ will create a ‘news filter bubble’. More than three quarters of news consumers claim to have independently fact-checked a story, while 70% have reconsidered sharing an article – worried that it might be fake news. On the flip side, almost one in five admit to sharing a story after reading only the headline.
Full access to the report can be found at Kantar Insights.
Key US data points:
Social Media still has more believers than non-believers:
37% of Americans believe social media outlets can provide trustworthy news, which is far less than the 70%* that feel that printed news outlets, including magazines, provide them with trustworthy news.
Older respondents (over 55 years old) were more likely to have an “untrustworthy” viewpoint vs younger.
*this is the average between National newspapers (75% positive); Local newspapers (61% positive); and news magazines (74% positive)
Political ideology affects how consumers gauge social media’s trustworthiness
Nearly half (47%) of right-leaning consumers have a positive outlook on social media’s ability to provide them with news they can trust, while only 22% of left-leaning respondents shared that same view.
On the flipside, left-leaning respondents were more likely to describe news on social media as untrustworthy (37%) compared to right-leaning ones (23%).
Newspapers are proving far more resilient to “fake news” epidemic than social media
More than half (59%)** of Americans say hearing about “fake news” hasn’t affected their level of trust in newspapers, and 17% said it’s actually increased their level of trust. However, 24% admit that “fake news” has decreased their level of trust in newspapers.
When it comes to social media, 54% of Americans say that “fake news” has eroded their trust in those sources.
** Average between national and local newspapers
What is “fake news”?
Overall, more than 60% of Americans believe the term “fake news” is defined as a story that is factually incorrect, either by mistake or on purpose.
72% of right-leaning Americans believe that “fake news” means a story that is deliberately fabricated by a mainstream news outlet.
When it comes to moderate or left-leaning respondents, a little more than half would use that definition.
Only 37% believe that “fake news” is something put out by someone masquerading as a news outlet.
How consumptions habits have changed
Americans are varied in how they get their news, though social media is becoming a primary news source
38% of Americans said they get their news by using social media.
The next-most cited was a tie (36%) between keyword searches or directly accessing news websites and apps.
Despite holding an unfavorable view of social media’s trustworthiness, left-leaning respondents were more likely to use it as their main news source (44%) compared to right- leaning (35%).
Showing its place as the dominant social media platform, Facebook was overwhelmingly cited as the top news source on social, with 85% saying they use the platform as a news source.
Americans want news to remain free to access, believing that media outlets still get enough ad revenue to support themselves:
Nearly ¾ of Americans (72%) say they haven’t paid for any kind of news content online in the past year. Compared to the global sample, Americans are more likely to buy a newspaper, with 45% saying they’ve purchased one in the past week, compared to 40% of global respondents. More than half (56%) don’t see the point in paying for online news (via a subscription fee) because they can access everything they need for free. Just 8% feel it’s their duty to pay for unbiased and independent journalism. 21% feel that news organizations get enough money from online advertising to support themselves.
Fake News: Not Likely in Financial Services
Andrew Corn, CEO, E5A Integrated Marketing
I am a former portfolio manager and ETF designer, now running an agency. We work across many industries. Because of my top quartile track record as a portfolio manager, we work with many investment companies, brokers, investment banks, real estate, private equity firms…you get the picture. We also work with public companies, firms seeking to list or uplist, and now firms using Reg A+ while staying private or going public.
We do not encounter fake, deceitful or intentionally misleading marketing, education or promotions. At E5A, we have a culture of doing what is best for our client’s target audience: showing off their intellect, being clever to educate or making a significant point and being straightforward to really underscore a point. Our clients appreciate our work and sense of fairness, but frankly, we don’t run into firms that institutionally want to deceive.
Perhaps it’s because we self-select our clients?
Our process for financial works, providing us the luxury of regularly turning away businesses that don’t fit our model. I think it is more than self-selection. FINRA is a regulator funded by the industry itself. Sure they have missed big—just look at Madoff. But by and large the industry, including marketing, compliance, outside legal and the regulators, is seeking to do what is right, and frankly, even leaning a tad bit to the conservative side.
We have also worked with over 1,000 firms that are public, that have gone public, or that are going public, and again, there is an educational process for what can be said and how. But all in all, I have not encountered ”bad actors” seeking to defraud investors. Yes, as a subcontractor many years ago, I did some work for Enron. But I can count the intentionally bad firms on one hand over my career. It’s nice to know with all the politics out there that I can escape to work where the vast majority of people are doing the right thing.
Sure, industry critics may blast me for this post, but those of us doing this a long time know, the overarching culture is doing the right thing, not fake news.
About the Author: Andrew Corn is CEO of E5A Integrated Marketing, headquartered in NYC offering assistance in asset gathering, capital raising, revenue acceleration, and public company packaging. Andrew heads strategy consulting including distribution. He is a former equity portfolio manager, ETF designer, public company chief marketing officer, agency CEO and fintech entrepreneur. E5A specializes in helping managers gain AUM and also works extensively in equity crowdfunding and other capital raising efforts. For more information go to: https://e5aintegratedmarketing.com/. Contact him at: [email protected].
Social Media & Bloomberg, Managing a Social Crisis, Fake News & More: Highlights (Video Series)
Editor’s Note: How social is changing journalism at Bloomberg, the relative importance of traditional versus social media; preparing for a social crisis; findings from the 2017 Social Journalism Study; and why social communications are different are covered in a series of interviews for our “Communicators to Communicators (C2C) Insights Video” series. Here are some highlights. Catherine Taibi, Bloomberg, Peter Himler, Flatiron Communications, Chris Lynch and Daniel Watson, CISION, were interviewed by Simon Erskine Locke, CEO of CommunicationsMatch at the recent CISION Social Journalism Livestream webinar organized with CommPRO.biz.
How Can You Navigate Fake News?
(Part 4 of 4)
Click here to read part 1 in this series.
Click here to read part 2 in this series.
Click here to read part 3 in this series.
Think of Unthinkable News
Let’s say the unthinkable happens. You walk into your office, just like any other day, flip on your computer and begin to check your favorite news sources. You notice your brand logo on the front page of CNN.com and your heart drops. Flipping through the story, you can tell facts of the story are baseless and that the story is clearly untrue. The fortune 500 brand you work for has been thrown into a fake news crisis. What do you do?
Here is where you can start:
1. Lean on your brand trust that we discussed in the last blog. If you’re actively building trust, and meaningful relationships, with your stakeholders this will be just like any other crisis. They may even go to bat for you and defend your brand. That’s how valuable building relationships through PR programs can be. 2. Craft a strong, unified response to the crisis at hand. Not responding isn’t an option. This is especially true in a situation with a large brand that has a lot of sales revenue at stake. Make sure your entire team is on board and ready to strike with a unified message. Likely, many communications teams, as well as leadership, will be involved in this discussion. Be sure that everyone knows their responsibilities and the unified message that will be pushed. Let’s remember that we are communication professionals. Our responses should be measured, timely, and accurate. Don’t rush into a response and make the situation worse. 3. Plan to respond. This is probably the most important step in all of this, but often is over looked by seasoned PR professionals. To keep the situation from spiraling out of control – plan to respond fast. In the world of fake news, news travels very fast. And in many cases, going viral is a real possibility and in some rare cases…. inventible. Don’t risk going viral for the wrong reason just because you can’t craft your statement fast enough. 4. Use your crisis communications plan!Like I said before, this is like any other crisis. You do countless hours of crisis prep just to prepare for this moment. Reach into that PR tool bag and be strategic with your messaging. Being timely, responsive, truthful, and open are musts during this process. 5. Capitalize on the website traffic. Sounds weird, right? But nine times out of 10, in a situation like this, your website is going to be flooded with traffic. Creating a simple call to action may catch the attention of those who are visiting your websites, for good or worse, so why not capitalize on it? Whatever the mission of your organization there is certainly a way to monetize something like this. Feel free to get creative, too, depending on the seriousness of the situation. 6. Look at it from all angles! Media coverage, message pull through, website traffic, share of voice from competitors during crisis, audience surveys on brand image – the list is endless. Be sure to think about your overall business objectives and how this communications crisis has effected the overall bottom line. Your image isn’t the only thing to take a hit, keeping tabs on business metrics is paramount during this process. Be Prepared
Is your organization prepared to handle a fake news crisis or a crisis in general? If not, these six simple tips are a starting point. Be assured that crisis communications plans are extensive, but having one in place is a must.
We hope this short series of blogs has been helpful in preparation for something we hope you never have to deal with. While the threat of fake news and misinformation isn’t going away, the nervousness around fake news can be put at ease by simply thinking like a communicator.
Please feel free to visit our website and see how we can help you prepare for crisis situations. Whether measuring the favorability of your brand in the media or keeping a pulse on your media footprint, we are here to help.
As always, feel free to tweet me at @AustinOmaha or @Universal_Info to continue the conversation about fake news.
Austin Gaule is the PR Measurement Director at Universal Information Services
How News Monitors Deal with Fake News? (Part 3 of 4)
Click here to read part 1 in this series.
Click here to read part 2 in this series.
News Monitors and Fake News
Universal Information Services is a news monitoring company and as such we are seeing and vetting fake news daily. This is a new age we are living in and we are, let’s say, just a little more than half a year into this new media world. This is truly a case of learning on the fly for many public relations professionals. Will fake news obscure their message? Will fake news skew their measurement results? Will fake news reduce the value and impact of my PR effort? All of these are great questions and are questions news monitors are working through for their clients.
Most of us, more likely than not, haven’t had to deal directly with the effects of fake news. But like I said in the last blog, low public trust in the media effects our entire industry, especially PR outcomes.
Trust Fights Back
So how can we counter-punch against this trust issue? The most effective way to “combat” this phenomenon may be to prepare yourself in advance. But as far as preventing your brand from getting tied to fake news, that might not be possible. Just ask Boeing and how they feel about their brand being associated with fake news so often. They didn’t ask for this to happen. They, believe it or not, didn’t ask to be publicly attacked by the President and be thrown into the middle of a war of words. It just happened.
Being prepared for a fake news crisis might be as easy as being the honest, ethical communications professional that you’ve been trained to be. But in case you aren’t that person… yet, here is what we are counseling our clients to do to prepare for a fake news crisis.
Start building trust with your audiences and stakeholders, if you haven’t already. As my brilliant colleagues over at AMEC pointed out this summer, trust is far more important than truth. You can start building brand trust It doesn’t take a crisis to get in place. You should actively be building positive relationships with your stakeholders and audiences. That way, when you are thrown into a crisis such as this, you can lean on your brand trust to help you through. Building trust with your audiences and stakeholders is an ongoing process. If you stopped relying on brand trust somewhere along the way, 2017 might be the year to restart those trust programs. Understand your audience and how they interact with news about your organization or brand. Like I mentioned at the start of this blog – fake news isn’t a new phenomenon. These concepts have been around since news has been published. What is different is the way your audiences are perceiving this information and interacting with it. Have a finger on the pulse of your communications footprint. Having a media monitoring partner in place can allow your team to find misinformation, or fake news, quicker. Having a partner in the monitoring/measurement world for your organization is imperative in 2017. This is true for social media more than any other media type. Actual fake news (fiction stories or untrue stories), generally, lives on social media. If you’re not monitoring your social presence to defend against misinformation campaigns, you need to have a plan in place that stretches across all mediums.
A Habit of Truth
Of course, you are probably doing most of this at your job now, but some might not be. Actively engaging in truthful discussions with your key audiences and stakeholders isn’t something you should do after a negative crisis strikes your brand. It’s something that should already be in place. The news monitors and PR measurement services you use can see and quantify the impact fake news is having on your PR effort if you ask them. Being prepared is the key.
What is your organization doing currently to combat misinformation campaigns?
Be sure to give me a follow at @AustinOmaha and discuss this topic with me. I’d love to chat about your thoughts, opinions, and insight into this issue as it effects all of us.
Austin Gaule is the PR Measurement Director at Universal Information Services Fake News Creates a Serious Problem for Journalists – Cision Releases New Study
CommPRO Editorial Staff
New Cision study examines the positive and negative impacts of social media on journalists
To inform best practices within the communications and PR field, Cision (NYSE:CISN) today released a new study that examines the impact of social media on journalists. The 2017 Global Social Journalism study provides insights into how journalists use social media and examines the problems that it has created for the media industry, including fake news and an increasing focus on speed rather than analysis. The study is the 6th in a series of studies published by Cision that chart the changes in how journalists use social media.
B a s e d o n a g l o b a l s urvey of 257 journalists, the study found that 90 percent of respondents use social media for work at least once a week and 48 percent could not successfully complete their work without social media. To determine how journalists are using social media, the study examined the popularity of different channels and social media use cases. Respondents noted that they increasingly use a wide variety of social media channels, with 42 percent of journalists using five or more channels a week. When asked how they use social media, respondents identified publishing (67 percent), interacting with their audience (60 percent) and monitoring the news (46 percent) as very important, while only 6 percent of respondents deemed interacting with PR professionals on social media as being very important.
“The question is no longer whether social media is important to the journalist: this study confirms it’s woven into their day-to-day work process,” said Chris Lynch, Cision CMO. “What’s more fascinating is that journalists are expressing concern about the societal impacts of social media on journalism. For example, it’s clear that ‘fake news’ on social media sites and the discourse that follows might be undermining the overall value of their craft. Brand communicators have an opportunity to help journalists sift through the noise and get reliable information in the process of their reporting.”
Despite social media being an increasingly central part of their daily job, journalists’ views on the impact of social media on their profession, work and daily practices were mixed. Less than half of respondents agreed that social media has had a positive impact on journalism and of particular concern was the rise of fake news, with 51 percent of respondents identifying it as a serious problem. Interestingly, journalists’ professional setting and demographic profile influenced concerns around fake news. News, politics and current affairs journalists were most concerned about fake news as were younger respondents when compared to their older colleagues. Other concerns included the impact of social media on traditional journalistic values (57 percent) and the role that social media has played in encouraging journalists to focus on speed rather than analysis (77 percent).
To develop the 2017 Global Social Journalism study, Cision and Canterbury Christ Church University conducted an online survey about the uses, behaviors, attitudes and perceptions of social media among journalists. Respondents were taken from Cision’s media databases of more than 1.5 million influencers globally. Throughout the survey the term ‘journalist’ is used to include all media professionals, e.g. researchers, editors, bloggers etc., who took part. A full report on the findings as well as takeaways for communications professionals can be viewed here.
How Does Fake News Impact Public Relations?
(Part 1 of 4)
“Your organization is terrible,” said then President-elect Donald Trump, as Jim Acosta struggled to keep his composure. “You are fake news”, Trump added.
It seems with that statement, although we heard it well before then, that the mainstream media was set into a four-year war that is showing no sign of slowing down. What war might you ask? Essentially, this is a war between those who distrust the media versus the media itself.
Modern Day Fake News
The term “fake news” really wasn’t even a real phenomenon of sorts until then President-elect started to use it against the media during his bid for the general election. Google Trends really didn’t start picking up chatter on this topic until October 2016 (as the graph below indicates) and interest hit its peak when Trump attacked Jim Acosta during a press conference in January. Trump used the term on live television, as he had done before, but this time it seemed different. It seemed that this “fake news” trend wasn’t going away.
Why is any of this relevant to public relations professionals? Good question. If our President is constantly attacking the mainstream media, won’t the public begin to distrust the media as well? The answer isn’t as clear cut as it seems, and over the next several blog posts we’ll explore what this “fake news” phenomenon means for our industry. The History of Fake News
While the modern form of “fake news” hasn’t been around long, news that is fake has been around for a long time. Merriam- Webster, yes the dictionary, conducted some research on the topic of fake news and cited some interesting examples from the late 1800’s, including one example of the phrase being used in the literal sense:
“Secretary Brunnell Declares Fake News About His People is Being Telegraphed Over the Country. —Cincinnati Commercial Tribune (Concinnati, OH), 7 Jun. 1890”
In present day, the phrase is used a little differently. All sides of the political spectrum are using this term and pushing it to the forefront, using it to describes many unique situations that the phrase wasn’t meant to describe. While it’s no secret that Trump loves to use the phrase, we are commonly seeing the phrase being used by “alt-right” groups and other fringe groups who are doing their best to tear down the media’s credibility – for whatever side they are fighting for. Some would argue that the phrase is a tool for the fringe groups to attack the media with. Simply put, the phrase is front of mind for everyone in the United States right now (unless you live under a rock).
To put it in perspective a little more, I conducted a quick google search of the phrase to see how the media was discussing it this week. I uncovered more than 50 cases of the term “fake news” being used in headlines of stories that appeared on what we would classify at Universal as “Tier 1” media outlet (fancy term for national media outlets). Just look at these headlines from the last several days to see how we are utterly consumed by the phrase:
“Facebook undermines its own effort to fight fake news” – Politico, 9/7/2018. “Rush Limbaugh’s dangerous suggestion that Hurricane Irma is fake news” – The Washington Post, 9/6/2017. “Why fake news spreads like wildfire on Facebook” – Chicago Tribune, 9/3/2017.
Here at Universal, we’ve seen the effects, too. We live, eat, sleep, and breath media coverage – so naturally, we’ve seen it and have absolutely heard of it. And of course, we’ve been following this trend since the beginning of the election when the phrase came to the forefront. We’ve helped clients find stories about their organization being related to fake news, we’ve helped measure the effect it has on them, and we’re constantly educating our clients on what the term means and how to identify fake news.
In support of AMEC’s measurement month, we’ll be navigating through this fake news crisis that we seem to be in the middle of. The series of blogs will discuss:
The public view of fake news and how trust is being eroded between public/media How our clients are viewing fake news and what questions they are asking us And how your organization can defend itself against fake news
Be sure to give me a follow at @AustinOmaha and discuss this topic with me. I’d love to chat about your thoughts, opinions, and insight into this issue as it affects all of us. The Real Impact of Fake News: A New York IABC Panel Discussion (Live Event, NYC)
6:30 PM – 8:30 PM EDT
Location: FleishmanHillard 220 E 42nd Street New York, New York 10017
Tickets: $40 – $60
“Fake News” stories have a significant toll on businesses today – and can, without warning, become difficult to manage. Communication professionals are expected not only to spot a rising story, but also stop it in its tracks.
Join New York IABC on July 26 as we unravel this subject with a panel discussion on the impact of Fake News and what it means from the corporate, agency and media perspectives. Expert panelists will discuss how they identify potential issues, advise clients or act themselves, and how they arm themselves for future impact.
Panelists will include:
Tim Race, Senior Vice President – FleishmanHillard New York
Tim is a member of the Corporate team at FleishmanHillard, a leading global corporate communications agency, where he offers media counsel and storytelling advice to corporate clients. Tim previously was a longtime editor, newsroom manager and writer at The New York Times with extensive experience overseeing award-winning news and enterprise coverage, and packaging them for digital and print publication.
Peter Himler, Founding Principal – Flatiron Communications LLC
Peter founded Flatiron Communications in 2005, a New York- based PR and digital media consultancy, after serving in senior media leadership roles at some of the world’s more esteemed global agencies including Edelman, Burson-Marsteller, Hill and Knowlton and Cohn & Wolfe. Peter currently serves as president of the Publicity Club of New York and edits the Medium publication “Adventures in Consumer Technology,” which has 47,000 followers.
Brett Lofgren – President of NewsWhip, North America & Global CRO Brett directs overall growth and revenue strategy, helping brands and publishers use NewsWhip technology to grow their audience through social data. Most recently at leading content marketing platform Contently, Brett has 20 years of experience in digital media, having held C-Level roles at publisher monetization platform 33Across, Epic Advertising, and Yahoo!, among others.
Be prepared the next time a Fake News story affects you. Although designed from a PR and media perspective, professionals from both external and internal communications will benefit from this topic.
Seating is limited. Reservations close at noon, July 24th. Sign up today!
Media Predictions in an Era of Fake News
Chris Lynch, Chief Marketing Officer, Cision
In 2016, the media found itself in an unusual position: The media wasn’t simply reporting the news; it was the news. While research indicates that people still trust earned media more than paid or owned media, a series of key events — particularly the US presidential election — eroded public trust in the media. From the use of Twitter by political candidates to reports of fake news to the rise of platforms like Snapchat and Facebook Live, media wasn’t just something people consumed in 2016 – it was part of their daily dialogue and experience.
The findings of Cision’s State of the Media Report 2017 are clear: journalists, publishers and brand communicators must continue to provide relevant, authoritative, accurate content to the public in order to preserve and rebuild consumer trust. The way the public consumes and relates to the media is evolving, as are the ways industry professionals are pivoting and adapting to this shift.
Below are eight predictions, based on our State of Media survey respondent feedback, for what you can expect to see trending for media in the year ahead:
Trust and credibility are on everyone’s mind.
Ninety-one percent of journalists believe that the media is somewhat or much less trusted than they were three years ago – and they’re not wrong. A recent report found that public trust in the media has dropped to a level matching distrust in government officials. More than ever, journalists and influencers value accuracy over speed. Ninety-two percent of respondents said that being right is more important than being first, up four percent from 2016.
Facts and accuracy come first.
Journalists want news outlets and publications to focus more on fact-based reporting rather than opinion-based coverage. Although influencers were more divided on the matter, 60 percent of reporters say the public values facts over opinions or feelings. Within the industry, being right is viewed as more important than being first.
Mode matters.
Journalists continue to prefer email as the primary means of contact, with more than 90 percent of respondents indicating it is their preferred way to receive a direct story pitch. Telephone pitching has fallen out of favor, with an eight percent uptick in respondents who say that pitching by phone is strictly off limits.
Personal pitches pack a punch.
Journalists continue to rely on public relations professionals for story sources. While the majority say their reliance on PR professionals has not changed, twelve percent say they rely on PR professionals more today than they used to. Newsworthiness and relevance to a journalist’s audience are critical to piquing a reporter’s interest, with the topics that communicators pitch to a journalist or influencer proving to be more important than how the story is pitched. More than half of respondents said that displaying knowledge of past work, interests and beats is what drove them to pursue a story. It has never been more important to know about the person you’re pitching to.
Influencer marketing continues to mature and is constantly evolving.
The ethics of influencer marketing were big news in 2016, with the Federal Trade Commission cracking down on disclosure rules and fining brands that failed to have influencers declare sponsorships. As the ethics for influencer marketing continue to evolve and mature, public relations professionals have a valuable opportunity to play a role in shaping the industry.
Media will continue to be a multi-channel world. With real-time media channels and live video outlets growing in popularity, modern media professionals are wearing a new hat: diversified digital content generators. Facebook has become the leading audience engagement tool, while journalists identify Twitter as having the greatest opportunity for growth. With eroding trust in traditional media, the rise of independent media influencers such as bloggers, podcasters and social media personalities, as well as influencers, will become even more important within the communications ecosystem in the year ahead.
Social reliability is a concern.
Journalists continue to use social to share and broadcast their stories, but that doesn’t mean they automatically trust these sources for content. Faith in the credibility of social media has dropped, with seven percent fewer respondents agreeing that it is a reliable resource for information when compared to last year.
Interactive content is key.
To increase engagement and interaction with readers and viewers, media professionals are trying to make their content more interactive. Results show journalists are now more likely to use images, videos, infographics and user-generated multimedia than data assets. Photos and social media posts rank first and second as the most popular forms of media used.
If 2016 was the disruptor year for media, 2017 is the year of opportunity. For PR professionals, success will not only depend on working within the context of new trends and tactics, but also understanding where things stand today to get ahead of where they are going tomorrow.
About the Author: Chris Lynch oversees Cision’s global marketing teams. Serving as Chief Marketing Officer, Lynch is responsible for Cision’s global marketing strategy — spanning communications, product and digital marketing. Previously, he ran product marketing and go-to-market strategy for Oracle’s Marketing Cloud business and also held leadership positions at companies like Badgeville and TIBCO. Based in San Francisco, Lynch attended Northeastern University where he received his Bachelor of Arts in Journalism. Follow him on Twitter @cglynch.
82 Percent of Americans Register Concern About the Impact of Fake News
A Commpro News Update
The results of a new national poll finds that the proliferation of fake news is weighing heavily on the minds of Americans. According to A Real Plague: Fake News, hosted by Weber Shandwick, more than eight in 10 Americans reported that they are indeed concerned about the impact of fake news on the credibility of the media. This high level of concern is common to both political parties, both genders and increases with age.
In the findings, 75% of americans responded that they find it difficult to determine what news is accurate and what is not, and seven in 10 believe that they have read a fake news story. In addition, 71 percent of respondents think that fake news is contributing to incivility in society. Many believe that fake news stirs up emotions such as anger, confusion, anxiety and disengagement, all leading to greater incivility and polarization. With 69 percent of Americans believing that our country has a major civility problem, the spread of fake news has alarming consequences. More than half of Americans believe the level of civility in our nation could be improved if social media sites and search engines curbed fake news.
“People depend upon the truth to understand the world around them. Our research reveals that Americans are experiencing considerable doubt and confusion over what they are being told, what they are hearing and what they are reading,” said Leslie Gaines-Ross, chief reputation strategist of Weber Shandwick. “The marketing and communications industry has an important role in facilitating solutions that advance trustworthy news and information to all Americans and Weber Shandwick is determined to do what we can to help in the fight against false news.”
Americans blame a combination of sources for the distribution of fake news. When asked to write in who or what they think is primary responsible for the distribution of fake news, Americans most frequently named the media, social media, attention seekers and political entities such as parties and politicians. Democrats and Republicans had similar top sources of blame, though Republicans were twice as likely to name the media. Few Americans see themselves as responsible for the spread of fake news – only nine percent say they have ever shared a fake news story online. Even the Pope is Worried About Fake News
By Christina Bertinelli, Senior Partner at Lumentus, a strategic communications firm with a specialization in digital reputation management.
The Pope himself fell victim to a fake news story, which falsely reported his endorsement of Donald Trump. The Pontiff came out this month saying the media’s obsession with scandal was akin to “coprophilia”, an abnormal interest in excrement.
In that same interview, he said that people could not be expected to make “a serious judgment” about any situation if the media provided “only a part of the truth, and not the rest.” The issue of balance has been at the heart of the debate about changes in the way people consume information today.
Should you worry about fake news? How about if a fake news blast was pointed in your direction? What if it could affect your business? This is probably something the owners of Washington, D.C., pizzeria Comet Ping Pong never thought they would confront. But is your firm or large corporation next?
The pizza restaurant continues to reel since the fake story broke: that members of the Democratic National Committee had abused children at the pizzeria as part of Satanic rituals. The story gained traction a few days before the presidential election and, before the business could react or understand what was happening, it was receiving threatening messages on Instagram, Facebook and Twitter.
This story even led to a gunman entering the restaurant claiming to “self investigate.” While this was an extreme example of how powerful fake news has become and how it can affect a small business, it is important to do everything possible to project and build a digital fortress for your business – particularly a larger corporation, association or organization.
Although the #PizzaGate story is much more severe – and unexpected — than most businesses would have outlined in their crisis communications plans, it certainly highlights why those plans probably need updating and new protocols adopted. While you may have designated spokespeople and even have “dark” websites and other contingency materials and procedures in place, you now must ensure that you carefully and professionally monitor and manage your “digital namespace.”
The key to managing your online digital presence is to identify your best credentials and build digital assets specifically optimized to appear at the top of search listings. Here’s a shortlist of some simple and immediate actions that can help protect one of your most valuable assets, your name, and your most valued attribute, your reputation:
Own your URL and have it optimized for your business and key stakeholders. Claim all of your social media “handles;” even if you don’t have any intention of using them, don’t open the door for someone else. This would also allow you to shut down the ability to comment if something were to go viral. Monitor your search results through a weekly incognito search of your business name. Continually feed your website, industry and stakeholder “content machines”, and be active and relevant to your audiences. Most importantly, build a digital communications plan and update it on at least a quarterly basis.
Perception is reality, and the good news is that executives and firms can directly influence the impression generated in search results, as well as the culture reflected by the firm’s website and other online content. Basic common-sense approaches to building and maintaining a strong online profile can mean the difference between a bump in the road from an executive departure or litigation, and a full-blown crisis.
Managing an online reputation doesn’t mean any consulting firm can remove negative headlines from the news or from search results. No firm or executive is perfect, and issues may arise, but a story from five years ago should not be the first headline someone reads. Dynamically managing digital reputations means those potentially damaging stories no longer define a firm or its executives.
Digital, or online, reputation management is both a science and an art. It’s vital that you or your agency partner understand your business objectives and how managing the digital footprint of your business can assist with achieving those goals, projecting your image and ensuring you have at least a basic reputation “insurance policy” in place.
We have seen the good, the bad and the ugly during our years in the strategic communications business and focus on digital reputation management. The recent epidemic of “fake news” has stunned even us, but our remedies remain valid, our approaches are still effective and now we have both raised and lowered the bar for determining threats.
If you need advice on managing and optimizing your digital reputation, please feel free to reach us at [email protected].
About the Author: A senior partner at Lumentus, Christina has shaped and supervised marketing and communication projects for more than 18 years with a focus on creative excellence, brand strategy, client satisfaction and fiscal responsibility. Christina runs theDigital Reputation Management practice for Lumentus and oversees the team of content specialists and technology and search experts.