The power of words used on a social media platform have proven to be a destructive force for one journalist. According to Nir Rosen, a liberal freelance journalist who recently wrote about the Egyptian government overthrow, a series of unfortunate comments he made regarding Lara Logan, the American CBS correspondent who was sexually assaulted in Cairo resulted in him losing his job at New York University. In an article for Salon magazine http://www.salon.com/news/egyptian_protests/index.html?story=/mwt/feature/2011/02/17/nir_rosen_explains_twitter_controversy, he defended his reasoning and offered an apology. Ultimately, the irony is that the same people who read his questionable Twitter posts are not likely the same people who read the Salon magazine article. Another version of this news is rather shamelessly described in a very different opinion piece written for American Thinker magazine here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/risky_business_lara_logan_and.html. In my opinion, there is little doubt that Twitter has the same power to incite a mob mentality. At a minimum, such short “tweets” can cause both misunderstanding and misbehavior on the part of the reader or the writer. In America, the freedom of the press allows both of these written articles to exist without government censorship or recrimination, however, public opinion via the Internet certainly appears to be more abrupt and career limiting.
Why do dead birds fall from the sky? Should you care? Seems like the news media likes to find connections in odd occurrences that continue to plague our country. The media it seems, loves a crisis or at least stories of animals dying en masse. Why is this news? It is certainly odd, one of the criteria for newsworthiness and it seems like there are an abundance of these events happening. This commentary on the recent avian news http://wp.me/pmsUw-1G suggests that this might be a case of human lemmings pushing each other over a cliff. View this video and then add your comments: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7211633n
Wikipedia turned 10 in January 2011. It has come a long way from its roots as a hackneyed collaboration of articles to up-to-date content moderated by editors around the globe. A recent survey from the Pew Research Center revealed just how popular the service has become. Read it here: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Wikipedia/Report.aspx
However, Wikipedia is still not accepted as a definitive source of news because the content and descriptions can be added by anyone and some people have figured out how to fake out the system. At the heart of the controversy is its banishment from academia. According to professional researchers, the information is not vetted using a more rigorous, scholarly method as used by its nearest competitor, Encylopedia Brittanica. Does it matter? Is the venerable Encyclopedia Brittanica nearing extinction? Will Wikipedia ultimately turn to advertising to fund its existence? Will this influence the content?
Here’s a test, search for the following words–Oliver North–using both services and then compare the results. (Naturally, membership is required to get detailed information from one of the services–which is a very important distinction.)
What are your thoughts?
Another year and another round of Super Bowl advertising. Some people actually watch it for the football game, but you wouldn’t know it if you read anything in the blogosphere about the (failed) half-time show or the consumer backlash over some commercials. Take Groupon for instance. Their ad touted human rights issues in Tibet, but for the purpose of advertising fish curry. The challenge, it seems, is to succeed at championing social issues, while not appearing insensitive or demeaning. Here’s a link to the advertisement:
What’s really interesting from a PR perspective is how the company is handling the situation. Here’s a link to a recent news article about the company’s efforts to apologize–sort of.
What is your opinion?
Ever try to communicate sarcasm, friendship or affection via e-mail? How about being corrected for misbehavior by a supervisor via an e-mail exchange? The problem is that e-mail is a poor communications tool that lacks the subtlety and formality of face-to-face communication. Without proper tone or the nuances of body language, sometimes there is a gap in communication. A recent study summarized in this article: http://www.openforum.com/idea-hub/topics/managing/article/communication-mistakes-every-office-makes-alana-horowitz explains some of the inherent problems with the misuse of e-mail. Afterall, it’s difficult to listen to someone via e-mail. What do you think?