That VW ad – Jamaica No Problem – Offensive? Or Good Exposure?

Have you seen the VW ad that’s creating all the controversy? It depicts an American spreading joy and cheer by talking to everyone in what is supposed to be a Jamaican accent. Check it out, it has had over 1.5 million hits on Youtube in less than a week!

The ad has also sparked criticisms of racism and stereotyping.

USA Today cites “pop culture guru” Barbara Lippert  as one of the critics.

“It made me uncomfortable to see all of those white people in an office setting doing this,” she is quoted as saying. “I found it offensive.”

Apparently, seeing white people trying to talk Jamaican is  offensive.

Diving at Rick’s (Negril, Jamaica) (Photo credit: caribbeanfreephoto)

Well, that happens every day of the year in our resort towns though! Somehow, the critics perceive the ad as making fun of Jamaicans and our culture. It is interesting that many Jamaicans, who can be so quick to take offence, don’t seem to see it that way.

Erwin Floyd G, commenting on the Facebook page of my radio programme Beyond the Headlines said this:

“there’s nothing wrong with the ad…it shows how much everyone around the world appreciates our culture and will do anything to incorporate it in their’s…it shows happiness and acceptance to me. A great ad!”

Let’s get this straight. I have NO problem with this ad. Do the accents suck? Of course! The VW executive interviewed about the issue on CNN’s Starting Point said they used a coach to work on the accents. Emmm, ok. They didn’t do such a great job. But is that really the issue?

The message of the ad is that if you go to Jamaica, you’ll be happy. Jamaicans are happy-go-lucky people who spread happiness wherever they go. Is it a stereotype as some charge? Yes, probably, but when we’ve spent 50 years marketing ourselves as the country to visit if you want to “feel alright” and with our unofficial (official?) tourism slogan being “Jamaica, no problem” I’m not sure that we can take offence at this point. But undoubtedly some people have.

Another visitor, to our Facebook page, Barbara Hart, said this:

“VW need (sic) to pull this ADD (sic) this is outrageous, we are not a poppyshow, this is not hilarious this is mocking our Patwa language, and he sounded so false to the bone, every one try (sic) to use us in every way possible…”

Is Jamaica more nuanced a country than sea and sand, with some dreadlocked ganja-smoking idlers sitting under a coconut tree? Clearly. But the vast majority of our visitors will never see that side of Jamaica, since they will only ever interact with “happy”, smiling Jamaicans whose job is to make them “feel alright.”

For me, the more important issue is the tremendous reach of our culture, how others enjoy our language (which we are unable to come to terms with) and the tremendous impact we have on the world.

Let’s put this in financial perspective.

Yahoo Finance reports that companies are paying nearly $4 million for one 30-second Super Bowl ad this year, and

English: Line graph of cost of 30 second advertising spot during Super Bowl US television broadcast. Data taken from Wikipedia articles (if more than one price is given, lower has been set). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

that last year more than 111 million people watched the 2012 Super Bowl. That’s millions of people who will likely see this ad and could be influenced by it.

One CNN anchor who commented on the VW ad said that he wasn’t sure what it did for VW but it did make him want to visit Jamaica. I’ll take that!

What do you think? Did the ad offend you?

Related articles

• VW Jamaica-theme Super Bowl ad: Racist? (usatoday.com)
• EXCLUSIVE: VW reveals 2013 Super Bowl ad and ‘Starting Point’ panel debates use of Jamaican accent (startingpoint.blogs.cnn.com)
• Volkswagen’s Super Bowl Ad Has a Jamaican Accent (mashable.com)
• Volkswagen accused of racism for ad using whites with Jamaican accents (caribbean360.com)

Jamaican TV Stations TVJ and CVM Sued for Not Airing Ad Promoting Tolerance Towards Homosexuals

DJ Miller Photo

Attorney-at-law Maurice Tomlinson has filed suit in the Supreme Court against Jamaican free-to-air television stations TVJ (the 1^st Defendant) and CVM (the 2^nd Defendant), claiming breach of his constitutional rights for refusing to air a Public Service Announcement (PSA) promoting tolerance towards homosexuals. He has asked the court to make declarations stating that by refusing to air the PSA the stations breached his constitutional rights. He is also asking the court to order the stations to air the ad, and has asked for damages.  

This case, if it goes forward, will be an important test of the new Charter of Rights, and could be a significant test case for freedom of expression and the gay rights lobby.

In his court papers, Mr. Tomlinson says that homophobic laws, policies and attitudes throughout the region discourage homosexuals from seeking effective HIV prevention support and treatment.   

Against that background, the PSA, dubbed “Love and Respect PA,” is said to be part of a campaign to promote tolerance for Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) and homosexuals. The 30-second ad is described as depicting a man and his aunt, in which the man (played by Mr. Tomlinson) tells his aunt that he continues to try “to get Jamaicans to respect (his) human rights as a gay man.” The aunt tells the man that she loves him even though she does not know why he is gay.   

He says he contacted CVM in February 2012 , and TVJ in March 2012, asking for the ad to be aired, and despite communication over several months, never received a final  decision on the matter from either station. He last wrote to both stations on September 18, stating that he would take lack of response as an indication that they did not intend to air the ad. 

The sections of the Charter of Rights on which Mr. Tomlinson is relying are as follows:

s. 13 (1) (c ) which states that all persons are under a responsibility to respect and uphold the rights of others recognized in this Chapter;

s. 13 (5) which states that the Charter binds natural or juristic  persons  if,  and  to  the  extent  that,  it  is applicable, taking account of the nature of the right and the  nature of any duty imposed by the right;

s. 13 (c) which sets out the right to freedom of expression;

s. 13 (d) which sets out the right to seek, receive, distribute or disseminate information, opinions and ideas through any media.

Photo by http://www.freedigitalphotos.net

The Claimant says that under the Charter, private entities as well as government have an obligation to protect the constitutional rights of citizens. He says TVJ and CVM therefore had a duty to respect his rights to freedom of expression and to seek, receive, distribute or disseminate information, opinions and ideas. He states that the companies should have aired the ad because:

1. airing a paid advertisement with public interest content can be  described as a public function;
2. the broadcasting licences which the state granted to the companies place an obligation on them to operate in the public interest;
3. it is in the public interest that MSM are free to receive and distribute information to enhance public awareness about homosexuality and the national HIV response;
4. TVJ and CVM operate Jamaica’s major TV stations,  and therefore have “immense power over the information, opinion and ideas that are  disseminated and distributed to the public;”
5. free speech is guaranteed not only to media owners and workers but also to members of the public who wish to use the media to share their views,
6. the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech can be enforced against private media owners since they control mass media and provide a service under a government license.

Mr. Tomlinson  says there was no justification for refusing to air the ad as the Broadcasting Commission had stated in writing that the ad did not breach any broadcasting regulations. By not airing the PSA, therefore, he says that the stations abused their “power over the dissemination and distribution of ideas and opinions via television.”

Disclosure: I work for TVJ.

Social Media and Journalism in Jamaica – Where Are We Headed?

Free twitter badge (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There isn’t any question that social media have changed journalism for good, across the world and in Jamaica. The questions now, perhaps, are how extensive that change has been, and what the media landscape will look like in the future.

The creation of the Internet, the democratization of access to publication, the instant access it created for thousands of citizen journalists to reach an international audience, all laid the groundwork for permanent change.

Think of Jamaica just twenty years ago. In the days before the Internet, and in a restricted media landscape, newsrooms could take their time getting news to the public. Events that took place in the evening probably wouldn’t make it into print until two days later. After all, if it wasn’t in the Gleaner, or on JBC and RJR, there was no other way for the public to get their news. Those with access to shortwave radio could hear international news, but local news dissemination was dependent on the local media giants.

How times have changed! With scores of ordinary people likely to be live-tweeting from anywhere and everywhere, traditional media houses have to be racing to keep up.

Consider this statement by New York Times columnist Thomas L. Freidman:

“I covered the Republican convention, and I was impressed in watching my Times colleagues at how much their jobs have changed. Here’s what a reporter does in a typical day: report, file for the Web edition, file for The International Herald Tribune, tweet, update for the Web edition, report more, track other people’s tweets, do a Web-video spot and then write the story for the print paper. You want to be a Times reporter today? That’s your day. You have to work harder and smarter and develop new skills faster.”

Barbara Blake Hannah said on my Facebook page that:

“The day of traditional media is over, just like writing with pen and paper. Look at how the report of Alpanso Cunningham’s gold medal reached FB at least a day before newspapers and TV carried the story. The power wielded by the traditional media has now passed democratically into the hands of ‘the people.’

Before we rush to sound the death knell for traditional media, however, consider that firstly, much of the news coming from the Paralympics and the blow-by-blow descriptions of Buju Banton’s trial was reported by journalists

English: Mug shot of Buju Banton. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

working for traditional media houses using social media to get the news first to their online products, before sending it on to their print or broadcast editions.

In addition, many people do still recognize that traditional media regard themselves as having a responsibility to fact check stories, something often not done by tweeters and posters, so even people who get news from social media (and who doesn’t nowadays?) often still look to traditional media houses for verification.

The two most infamous examples of false reports which spread rapidly thanks (?) to social media were the repeated claims that Buju Banton had been freed, and that Kartel had escaped.

Allan Rickards expressed the desire for verification  in his FB post when he said that:

“It is not news for me until it is confirmed in the traditional media…far too often the so-called social media is a hotbed of rumour/propaganda.”

I suggest that what we are seeing is a convergence of the old and the new. Will newsprint and the traditional radio and TV newscasts become obsolete with the increasing production of news-on-demand? We may be heading there, but I don’t think it’s something we should dread. New technologies have always transformed the means of communication. From papyrus and the slate to the keyboard, from the fountain pen to the stylus, technological developments have improved the ability to communicate with the public.

Mark you, I am sure there were naysayers who hated the idea of printing presses which would produce thousands of books that anyone could read.

“What about the job security of the men who write the books by hand?” I can hear them asking. “This is going to lead to mass unemployment!”

Or when paper was developed, there was probably someone getting up in meetings and objecting on the basis that the rivers would become overrun with weeds if they weren’t being harvested to make papyrus.

Photo by nattavut at freedigitalphotos.net

This article in the Economist, looks at the evolution of the relationship between social and traditional media, from the days when a senor news executive felt able to make the derisive comment that a blogger was just someone “in his living room in his pyjamas writing what he thinks” to the present day when social media are seen as “a valuable adjunct to traditional media.”

The writer chronicles how the story about the death of Osama Bin Laden developed on Twitter for example, and how social media helped spread the massive story of the Arab spring.

“Thanks to the rise of social media, news is no longer gathered exclusively by reporters and turned into a story but emerges from an ecosystem in which journalists, sources, readers and viewers exchange information,” said the Economist.

Jamaican media houses have recognized the importance of not being left behind. The Press Association of Jamaica now has an award for on-line journalism, and newsrooms are trying to ensure that they break stories on social media, instead of playing catch-up to on-line-only outlets.

At this stage I have no idea what the future will look like. After all, I’m now in love with an E-reader which I never thought possible! See my post on my new-found love for E-readers here.

The Huffington Post has proven that online media products can be successful. The old models are doubtless being transformed as we speak, but I hardly think there will be an end to journalism or jobs for journalists. What those jobs look like has already changed significantly, and is likely to change still further. But then, as the New York Times’ Friedman says, “Any form of standing still is deadly.”

The Jamaica Broilers Fair Play Awards is being held Tuesday, September 11 and will highlight the importance of social media. Perhaps the featured speaker Saadiq Rodgers-King , a successful social media entrepreneur, will have some ideas about what the future will look like. If he does, I’ll be sure to let you know.

Disclosure – I’ll be participating in the function.

 

Lessons from the Jamaica 50 Song Fiasco

A map of Jamaica (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The predictable chorus of voices asking why Jamaicans are spending so much time talking about the Jamaica 50 song, misses, as we tend to do, the real issue. (If you missed the debate of the last few days check out my post on the Jamaica 50 song controversy here). People have real concerns  about the way this process has been handled, about inclusiveness, and most of all about what many feel has been the marring of a national celebration by political bickering and one-upmanship.

The Culture Ministry’s determined insistence that there is no problem, that we all should just hold hands and get along, ignores, deliberately, its role in the problem.  The latest statement from the Ministry has managed to blame almost everybody but itself, saying that:

“It is unfortunate and regrettable that the promotional agency associated with the producer of  the “On a Mission” marketing campaign song and a corporate sponsor of Jamaica 50, as part of the sponsor’s undertaking to promote the song, incorrectly  branded a released CD and associated printed materials with the declaration of the “On a Mission” marketing campaign song as the Official Jamaica 50 Song, without the required vetting or approval of the Jamaica 50 Secretariat.”

I think only Shaggy escaped censure there.

English: Shaggy Deutsch: Shaggy (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There are lessons here for the future, though, if only we would heed them.

1. Allow the annual Festival celebrations to be the vehicle driving such national celebrations. The Jamaica Cultural Development Commission (JCDC) puts on the annual Festival events. They are fun, well-produced, and well-attended.  With those already scheduled events themed for Jamaica 50,  or Jamaica 60 or whatever,  there would be no need for any additional big,costly national events. Each parish also already has its own programme, eg the JCDC Evenings of Excellence, which again are well attended.   With perhaps the addition of a western Grand Gala, or something else to ensure that Kingston is not the only focus, we could achieve the goal of a national celebration with not too much more additional cost.

2. The National Secretariat of such a big event should never again be located in a Ministry, with all the political issues that we have seen develop here. If the secretariat had been independently situated and truly national in composition, the disturbing changing of gear and shifting of focus that has caused a lot of the fuss would never have been necessary.

3. Similarly, regional planning committees could develop events that are celebratory but also money-making in scope, for example special community festivals and cultural events that could be put on the national calendar and marketed as tourist attractions.

4. The addition of  a series of national discussions about Jamaica at 50, and our path ahead for the next 50 years, would add the contemplative note many people feel we need at this time. Hey, I would love to see Parliament spending a few days debating that issue.

5. Let the Festival Song stand as the official song of the celebrations. Barbara Gloudon made the point on All Angles, my TV show on Television Jamaica (you can view the programme on the All Angles page at http://www.televisionjamaica.com) that people have hated some festival Songs and that many veteran producers would feel they are too big to participate in any kind of a national competition to choose a song. Well, so be it. We need to nurture new talent anyway.

Русский: Флаг Ямайки Slovenščina: državna zastava Jamajke “The Sun shineth, the land is green, and the people are strong and bold” is the symbolism of the colours of the flag. BLACK represents the strength and creativity of the people; GREEN represents hope and agricultural resources; GOLD represents the natural wealth and beauty of sunlight. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For us to benefit from this experience, however, there first has to be an admission that there was a problem, and so far we haven’t seen that. That is the real pity here.

PS – Oh, Culture Ministry – blaming the media? Really? The latest statement on the issue says:

“It is unfortunate that extended media attention has been devoted to a debate about a song for Jamaica 50 rather than about the real significance the Jamaica 50 milestone in the life the nation.”

I guess the folk up at Culture have been so busy not knowing what was happening with the mission-campaign-song-incorrectly-branded-as-a-Jamaica-50-song, they haven’t realized how much work the media have been doing on exactly that – contemplation of where we are at 50 years. Taking a few minutes to note the concerns people have doesn’t negate that. But hey, you have to blame somebody. Our backs are broad, we’re used to it.

Related articles

• Our Jamaica 50 Song….What the Hell Is It? (newsandviewsbydjmillerja.wordpress.com)

Memo to Jamaican Politicians : Long Speeches? Bad Idea!

Public Speaking University (cover shot) (Photo credit: justinplambert)

We have just finished the Budget Debate in the Jamaican Parliament with the predictably, overly long speeches. Later this year, we’ll once again have the political party conferences and the leaders will again deliver speeches that are way too long. I just don’t get it.

The observation that long speeches, in 2012, are a bad idea seems so self-evident it is almost ridiculous to be making it. Almost, but not quite, since you, the politicians, haven’t got the memo yet.

You still seem to harbour delusions that time has stood still since the 1970s when the only broadcast media outlets were JBC and RJR, and Michael Manley was fascinating Jamaicans with his hours of oratory.

IMAGELIBRARY/576 Persistent URL: archives.lse.ac.uk/dserve.exe?dsqServer=lib-4.lse.ac.uk&a… (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Not only are today’s politicians no Michael Manley, even Manley would have had a problem holding people’s interest with three- and four-hour speeches today. If he were here  and giving speeches,  I would give him the same advice.

At any given time we all have a million things to do, different media to check and tons of information coming at us. Jamaicans are paying as much attention (probably more attention) to the NBA play-offs,  President Obama’s prospects for re-election, the latest music videos and the Diamond League, as to the ramblings in Gordon House.

Yes, ramblings, I use that word unapologetically. Who has time to listen to self-indulgent ramblings for two or three hours? It’s much more efficient to just check the papers the next day, or the newscasts for the highlights. So, we, the members of the public, really don’t have a problem. We can just turn off the live presentations. And many of us do. So what’s the problem?

Well, I confess to some amount of curiosity. What is the purpose of the speeches? Help me here. Don’t you want people to actually, I dunno, listen to you? While you’re talking? Are you really happy talking to yourself, your fans and the civil servants forced to attend Parliament? Or the green and orange die-hard fans in the National Arena?  I kinda thought the idea was to reach a broader audience. Silly me.

I’m going to go ahead and make these suggestions anyway.

1. Have real speech writers  help with the speech. AND LISTEN TO THEM!!!! Speech writing is actually work, you know. It’s a real job. I’ve heard some of your half-baked presentations by politicians who pride themselves on writing their own speeches. Often, they suck. A professionally written speech ensures structure and flow which will make it easier for people to follow. While I’m listening  (I have to, because of my job) I can just visualize the red ink pen or delete button which need to be used much more extensively.

“It’s always interesting to see how involved the President is with editing his speeches. A few hours before his first nationally televised address to the nation, the President works on edits with aides Carol Browner, David Axelrod, and Jon Favreau in the Outer Oval Office.” (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) License on Flickr (2011-01-12): United States Government Work Flickr tags: WASHINGTON, DC, USA (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

2. Aim for an hour long speech. Hey, I’d actually suggest half an hour, but I’m sure you think that’s impossible. I would refer you to Barack Obama’s speeches, usually way less than an hour. And he is a hell of a lot better at speaking than anyone we have here.

English: Barack Obama delivering his electoral victory speech on Election Night ´08, in Grant Park, Chicago. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Say after me. LONGER IS NOT BETTER.

3. Fifteen minutes of thanking and greeting people is ridiculous. Why should we have to sit and listen to you thank everybody who has supported you in your political career? Take them to lunch instead.

4. Recognise that many of you are simply not interesting speakers, hence, shorter is definitely better. This is where it would be really good to have around you people who tell you the truth about yourselves. Dump the sycophants.

5. Realize that attention spans have gotten shorter. By the time you get to the meat of the speech, you’ve already turned off a lot of people. Forget the young people. Do you think the Twitter generation is hanging around for half an hour for you to really get started? And then for another hour or two? Why on earth would you want to turn off people like that?

6. The longer your speech, the less of it will be captured in subsequent news reports. Most people get their news from TV and radio. Why have such a long speech that most of it gets dumped?

NB Many of these speeches are carried by commercial broadcast media which have to forego regular programming to do so. The abuse of the availability of free airtime with these long-winded speeches may inevitably lead to fewer entities carrying them at all. Then you  really will be talking to yourselves.

Here We Go Again – Usain Bolt and His Girlfriend

Usain Bolt after his victory and world record in the 100m at the bird’s nest, during 2008 Beijing olympics, august 16th (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Yep, here we go again.

Usain Bolt has a white girlfriend!

Usain Bolt breaks up with his girlfriend!

Here goes another media feeding frenzy over something that is none of our business and totally unimportant. And just as was being said when I wrote my post about Yendi, the media are being asked why they won’t go off and solve crime, fix the economy, and prevent the sexual abuse of children.

Well, here’s the thing. First of all, check any newspaper. Listen to any newscast or talk show. There are actually scores of articles and issues discussed and covered every week. Sure, some of them are about people like Usain Bolt and his girlfriend, Kartel’s escapades, Kim Kardashian or (personal shudder) Justin Bieber, but there are also tons of stories on the economy, Parliament, crime and certainly right now, the sexual abuse of children.

We can talk about more than one thing at a time. We certainly have the column inches, the internet space and the hours of talk time.

“Why aren’t we talking about important issues?” goes the disparaging remark.

“We need to fix the serious problems in the country!”

I always wonder if people making these comments really think that the technocrats in the Finance Ministry have halted work on the budget, the police have stopped fighting crime, and social workers have put helping abused kids on hold while they enjoy the latest gossip about Usain. Or Asafa. And I’m sure your turn is coming soon, Yohan.  The problems of the country are being grappled with folks, even if we devote a bit of media space to whichever superstar people are following these days.

I always wonder how many of the critics making comments like that actually read the long (sometimes way too long) analytical articles in the Sunday papers, the detailed pieces in the business sections, or watch the coverage of Parliament (outside of the cass-cass). Hmmm. Anyway.

So, let’s forget the nonsense about the media needing to focus on important things. Serious news organisations do. All the time. BUT NOT ALL MEDIA HOUSES HAVE SERIOUS NEWSROOMS. So if you’re expecting that all media outlets will focus on the same crime/politics/economy/etc issues, you are really out of touch. And if you expect serious news organisations to ignore stories that millions of people are interested in, you’re not being realistic.

The other issue, then, is, should people be so concerned about something that is none of their business? Surely all that his fans should be concerned about is the time he ran in his latest race!

Usain Bolt winning the 100 m final 2008 Olympics. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Who cares if Usain Bolt wants to date or dump a white, black or purple woman? Well, rightly or wrongly, hundreds of thousands (millions?) do.

People tend to decide for themselves what they are and are not interested in, and we can cover Parliament, the Estimates of Expenditure and the Caribbean Court of Justice til the super moon passes by again, that won’t stop people being interested in Bolt.  And it’s because hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people across the world do care about Usain Bolt’s love life that it’s a story. As one journalist said to me

“He’s a superstar and it’s an Olympic year.” Duh!

Bolt’s Facebook page has over 6.6 MILLION likes.

usain bolt – victory lap (Photo credit: hannahspanna)

I wrote a post on news in the age of social media. Yea, social media matters. Do you really think it’s possible to have that many fans that connected to you, reading your every tweet and clicking on your latest post, without them feeling invested in your life, and yes, who you’re dating?

Since I first  posted this, a FB friend Irwine Clare commented:

“Why not? Brand Usain Bolt, it goes with the territory. $$$$$$ more”

That is an important point.  Stars deliberately build their platforms to help convert fans into consumers (of branded clothes, restaurants, books, whatever). That process contributes to the deep interest in their activities and lives.

So maybe you’d prefer to watch Parliamentarians debate the Estimates of Expenditure. That’s great. But I think you should accept that Usain’s girlfriends are going to be big news as long as he is a superstar. If you don’t like it, do what I do when I’m confronted by Bieber fever. Turn the page. Change the station. Click away. In other words, move on.

Was My Post about Journalists and Food Offensive?

Lunch (Photo credit: munir)

One experienced public relations practitioner was offended by my post “More Tips from the Newsroom” suggesting that breakfasts and lunches are not efficient ways of sharing information as they waste time. The offense was, I believe, primarily because of my suggestion that the food is seen as a way to entice journalists to attend the functions. I really did not intend to suggest that this is the case for all practitioners but I know that some people do think like this.

Here is the comment:

“As a former journalist, now a Public Relations Consultant, who has taught hundreds of people about good PR principles and media relations, I am offended by your comments.

In my book, breakfast or luncheon meetings are not about the meals, per se; but, rather a “time-based” convenience, to make the best use of journalist and client availability. However, it could be that, in the crassness of what goes for public relations today, the meal is the thing. But, it is tactless to paint such a broad band.

I am not into feeding journalists anything besides timely information;

and I have never called the newsroom to find out what happened to my story; and have taught my associates and students to refrain from making that mistake.

I have always maintained that “news” can always find its own legs…and does not have to be buffeted by enticements, or follow up calls. And, it is my hope that more of today’s PR practitioners will come to “understand” that they can “cross it,” because, in many cases they are the source. And, ultimately, media houses would have more respect for them, if they simply issued timely, quality news.”

This was my response:

“Sorry to have offended you Carmen, but I can state categorically that your position is not shared by all practitioners and business operators, and that some do believe that food is an enticement to journalists. I have heard the comments.

Secondly, for those who do not hold that view and believe, like you, that it is an efficient method of sharing information, I don’t know many journalists who would agree with that. As stated, many of us do not like breakfasts and lunches because they take way too much time and we believe that there are much quicker and efficient ways of sharing information, and therefore would much prefer a simple press briefing.

Not trying to be offensive, just practical and honest.

Again, the fact that you don’t call into media houses to enquire about your story doesn’t mean it is not done. It is done. All the time.

Photo – Michael Rhys
Wikimedia Commons

I would hope the professional, experienced public relations practitioners are not insulted by my posts (the first was called “Five Tips from the Newsroom), but the reason I have felt the need to write them is that we are the ones on the receiving end of all the unprofessionalism and what you call crassness that passes for public relations nowadays. I can understand why you would feel offended. However, unfortunately, all practitioners do not operate at the level of professionalism as you do. I wish they did.”

I appreciate the feedback and the opportunity to address this. What do you think? Were my comments offensive? Did they reflect reality? What would be your comment or suggestion?

Related articles

• Five Tips From the Newsroom (newsandviewsbydjmillerja.wordpress.com)

Five More Tips from the Newsroom

Photo by bizior
ww.sxc.hu

My first post on this issue received fervent Amens from my colleagues, so here are a few more.

1. DON’T DON’T DON’T try to use our Marketing Departments to put pressure on Editorial to carry your stories. Does it work? I guess it must, in some cases, if so many people do it. But editors will resent the hell out of you, whether the story gets carried or not, and will probably make a point of dumping your future releases in the bin as soon as they come in.  This is not the way to build useful professional relationships.

Photo by Tinneketin at www.sxc.hu

2. If you want to have a press conference, please, have a press conference. Don’t have a breakfast or lunch. They take way too much time, say four hours compared to a press conference which could take about one and a half to two hours. If your story is important, it’s getting covered, food or no food. Okay, I realize that unfortunately, there are probably still some reporters who follow their bellies, but really, if your issue sucks, food won’t make any decent reporter or editor like it any better. Save yourself some money and save us the time. Juice, tea and coffee are generally fine for a two-hour event. We’re not hiking through the Blue Mountains here. Sandwiches and fruit on a side table if you really want to be hospitable. That way, those of us who want to rush off can do so, having already got the information/interviews we need.

3. Stop inviting us to cover foolishness. Newsrooms have been cutting staff, and on any given day, there’s much more going on than we’ll ever be able to cover.  In addition, there’s work being done on original stories and features. Many of the events we are invited to cover are just not newsworthy,  although the discussion of what is newsworthy has been evolving as I said in my post on the Yendi story and my post on newsworthiness and social media. If your clients insist on media coverage for the launch of Pretty Calendars Week, tell them the truth – reporters are unlikely to come. Take a photo, write a release, send it in and hope for the best. And since we’re on the subject of releases…..

Photo by flautenbag
http://www.sxc.hu

4. Learn how to write one! Teach yourself how to write, brush up on your grammar and  have someone proofread what you are sending out. Do I really have to say that badly-written releases are a big turn-off and instantly tell us you are not professional? And just as importantly, learn how to write for news. Again, do you really want to hope that an editor will have the patience (a quality in short supply) to comb through paragraphs and paragraphs of dense text to try to figure out if there is a nugget of news in there somewhere?

5. Don’t call to complain about the angle a reporter took in covering your press conference or event. Well, you can call, but first understand that if you want to control the message, you shouldn’t have a press conference. Send a release and hope for the best.

What do you think of these points and is there anything you’d add?

Related articles

• News and Newsworthiness in the Age of Social Media (newsandviewsbydjmillerja.wordpress.com)
• Is the Yendi Story “News?” (newsandviewsbydjmillerja.wordpress.com)
• Five Tips From the Newsroom (newsandviewsbydjmillerja.wordpress.com)

In Praise of Jamaica and Jamaican Politicians on World Press Freedom Day

A map of Jamaica (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Jamaica’s record on press freedom is one of the best in the world. This is one of those areas in which we can justifiably hold our heads high and commend our political leaders for their commitment to maintaining freedom of the press.

When Reporters Without Borders released its tenth annual Press Freedom Index earlier this year, Jamaica ranked 16^th worldwide, out of 179 countries around the world, and second in the hemisphere only to Canada. That’s right, we ranked higher than countries like Australia (30^th), France (38^th) or the United States (47^th).

World Press Freedom Index 2010 (Reporters Without Borders) Deutsch: World Press Freedom Index 2010 (Reporter ohne Grenzen) more restraints 85 – 105 70 – 85 55 -70 45 – 55 35 – 45 25 – 35 15 – 25 5 – 15 0 – 5 keine Daten less restraints (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The group explains that the Index is calculated as follows:

“Reporters Without Borders prepared a questionnaire with 44 main criteria indicative of the state of press freedom. It asks questions  about  every  kind  of  violation  directly affecting journalists and netizens (including murders, imprisonment, physical attacks and threats) and news media (censorship, confiscation of newspaper issues, searches and harassment). And it establishes the degree  of  impunity  enjoyed  by  those  responsible  for  these  press  freedom violations.

“It also measures the level of self-censorship in each country and the ability of the media to investigate and criticize. Financial pressure, which is increasingly common, is also assessed and incorporated into the final score.

“The questionnaire takes account of the legal framework for the media (including penalties for press offences, the existence of a state monopoly for certain kinds of media and how the media are regulated) and the level of independence of the public media. It also reflects violations of the free flow of information on the Internet.”

When the countries with the worst rankings are examined, clear and often violent abuses are discerned. Reporters Without Borders said:

“Crackdown was the word of the year in 2011. Never has freedom of information been so closely associated with democracy. Never have journalists, through their reporting, vexed the enemies of freedom so much. Never have acts of censorship and physical attacks on journalists seemed so numerous. The equation is simple: the absence or suppression of civil liberties leads necessarily to the suppression of media freedom. Dictatorships fear and ban information, especially when it may undermine them.”

Photo by ede design

None of that applies to us here in Jamaica. Even while the Press Association of Jamaica and the Media Association of Jamaica remain vigilant to ensure that this valuable freedom remains intact, we must acknowledge the favourable media environment in which we live and work.

Press Association of Jamaica President Jenni Campbell, at the PAJ’s function to mark World Press Freedom Day, called on all Parish Councils to fully open up the operations of the local government authorities to media scrutiny, by allowing press coverage of all committee meetings, as well as the monthly Council meetings.

“Absence of media means that the people are also absent,” Campbell said.

Some councils allow coverage of several or most committees, but others are still closed. Years after the Parliament opened up its committees to press coverage, there is no acceptable reason for local government authorities discussing the people’s business to have a different standard of openness. This is a call we must all support, and strongly.

The Media Association of Jamaica is urging the government to prioritise the Bill to amend the Defamation Act, and has made recommendations for the amendment of the Access to Information Act, said MAJ President Chris Barnes. More on that in another post.

This kind of activism is crucial, but we must recognize that the fact that these are some of our major issues in 2012 is testament to the commitment of our politicians who have avoided the route taken by many other developing countries of trying to oppress, control and intimidate the media. Perhaps the fact that several of them began their working lives in media may have helped!

So let us first take a moment to remember and salute our colleagues in Iran (175th), where RWB says that

“hounding and humiliating journalists has been part of officialdom’s political culture for years. The regime feeds on persecution of the media,”

Pakistan (151st), cited as  “the world’s deadliest country for journalists for the second year running” and

Syria (176) where “total censorship, widespread surveillance, indiscriminate violence and government manipulation made it impossible for journalists to work.”

Let us then hail the Jamaican politicians, journalists, and civic organisations who have contributed to our proud record of press freedom.

News and Newsworthiness in the Age of Social Media

Photo - Palto

I received several very interesting and thoughtful responses to my post “Is the Yendi Story “News?” and wanted to share them with you and continue the conversation about what makes a story newsworthy. It’s a question which members of the public often ask, baffled about the content of a newscast or stories on the main pages of a newspaper.

Journalism professor Tony Rogers in an article on About.com outlined the basic criteria as follows:

Impact or Consequences

Conflict

Loss of Life/Property Destruction

Proximity

Prominence

Timeliness

Novelty

In relating those factors to the Yendi story, communications lecturer and broadcaster Hume Johnson made a similar list on my blog:

1. Proximity.
2. Significance
3. Relevance.
4. Prominence.
5. Human Interest.
6. Conflict.
7. Unusualness.

She said:

Photo - Rosengurtt at en.wikipedia

“The Yendi story satisfies #4. She is, for all intents and purposes a celebrity – prominent individual in our Jamaican community. So it is news. Yet the particular story is only ‘soft’ news. Should we give attention to soft news? I would say depends on where in the paper you put it. Front page – that would be absolutely scandalous; yet those whose aim is to sell newspapers will trump a political story for a soft news story because the ‘business model’ of the media industry and the revenue agenda would be chief determinant in this scenario.”

The problem, of course, is that these criteria are applied subjectively by editors.

Hillary Profita, formerly of CBS (the home of 60 Minutes) pointed this out in a 2006 article on the company’s websitein the context of a discussion about the role that race and class play in leading US news outlets to cover stories  like the disappearance of Natalee Holloway (white, middle-class, teenager), while ignoring that of  Marion Fye, (36 years old, a single mother of five children, unemployed and African American).

Natalee Holloway (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

She suggested that an indicator of the public’s rejection of the criteria applied by editors could be

“…the fact that more are veering toward the Internet to get news, where to a greater degree the news judgement is one’s own.”

She also echoes the sentiment I expressed about how editors and newsroom people decide what is newsworthy in noting that:

“…editors claim to know (what is newsworthy) when they see it. Unfortunately, in my view, that decision seems to boil down to what those of us in newsrooms, and not readers, care about.

And there’s the problem. What draws the interest of people in the news business (what they like to read and write about) often bears little relationship to what people who live in communities like Marion Fye’s care about. In that sense, what newspapers deem “newsworthy” is not actually information that is most relevant in terms of its potential effect on readers’ and viewers’ lives, but what is most out of the ordinary.”

It was in that vein that I had disagreed with Hume’s analysis by stating that:

“The story satisfies no. 1 – proximity – she is a celebrity, but she is ours, she is Jamaican, we all watched her become runner-up in Miss Universe and many people have been following her career. People feel close to her.

It also satisfies no. 5 – human interest. It is also unusual, no. 7 – of course, not in the sense of a woman becoming pregnant for a man, but the surrounding circumstances, the announcement on FB, the reactions and huge response, combined to make the way this story unfolded unusual – that fueled the story still more.

Relevance – no. 3 – I don’t know who determines what is relevant – if people are interested in someone or something, news about that person or thing will always be relevant.

…timeliness – again, she broke the news, the reactions started then she fueled it with the interview, and all this was being reported as it happened.”

Keriann took the discussion further by placing the story squarely within the framework of the social media age.

Author - Jeff Ogden

“It most certainly satisfied news value no.6 as well – conflict. The responses illustrated a conflict of values in the society. The country was clearly divided among those who thought the circumstances were no big deal and those who disapproved, and each side was vociferous about its position. That conflict matters, because each society (especially developing ones) must determine the value systems that will inform policies, laws, etc.

Unusual is also being defined too narrowly as a news value. It does not only address the sensational (man bites dog). It describes that which is unexpected. And the reactions have made it clear that Yendi was not expected to make the choices she did. If she was, there would not have been any heavy interest in her announcement or the aforementioned conflict.

Your argument about timeliness and the age of her pregnancy is also flawed. The stories of the intense reaction were carried within hours of the intense reaction. And it’s the reactions which made the story big. Also, if we’re discussing the pregnancy itself as a story (which it was for entertainment segments), then the age of the pregnancy doesn’t matter. It’s when the public discovers it, that it matters. The birth of former US presidential candidate John Edwards’ love child did not become news until well after the child was born.Should American media have ignored the story because they didn’t know about it as soon as his lover was pregnant? In cases when pregnancies are news, they do not become news when the parents become aware. They become news when the public does.

All journalism students will be familiar with your list of news values because it was developed to provide a means of helping media practitioners determine which stories will be of public interest. The closer an editor or journalist followed those principles, the more s/he was guaranteed public interest, which is the ultimate aim. It’s a shortcut to the right decision because naturally, editors cannot pick up the phone and call every potential news consumer everyday or conduct a focus group before choosing stories. So s/he unconsciously applies the news value test to stories everyday, hoping s/he made the right call. o The level of interest in her story will tell her whether s/he applied the principles well. Overtime, if a news source keeps making the wrong decisions, it will be penalised with low ratings in the market.

Photo - Wikimedia Commons

But here’s the clincher: in the age of social media when a story immediately goes viral, the public interest is already apparent! When there is already public interest, your system for determining public interest doesn’t need to be dissected because the end result (which the system was set up to determine) has already been achieved. It’s like working an equation backwards. You must get the same result or your inputs were wrong.”

Thanks to all who have commented and Hume and Keriann in particular for their thoughtful and considered respones. I’d love your comments as well. Is the migration to social media an indicator that traditional media are ignoring the interests of the public? Do newsrooms need to rethink how they apply the criteria of what constitutes a newsworthy story? And as Keriann suggests, if a story goes viral on social media, does that  make the list redundant?