After the Juan Williams, Rick Sanchez and Helen Thomas controversies, it suddenly hit me that freedom of speech isn't free at all. It is neither free in terms of price nor free in terms of boundary- you can't just say what you mean sometimes; and if you do, you surely will pay the consequences. Everybody loses in this sandstorm because it shows we are not ready as a society to openly and respectfully discuss our differences, feelings and/or fears. Until we evolve into a society that can express its feelings honestly in a language that isn’t offensive and with a heart that is free from hatred; until we are able to engage in an open dialogue that is free from bigotry and intolerance, only then, will we have unconditional freedom of speech. But until then, we must conform to the politically correct establishment. I am purposely discounting the fact that Mr. Williams, Mr. Sanchez and Ms. Thomas are bound by journalistic ethics and standards because first and foremost they are humans entitled to make mistakes; they are also citizens, whose freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution; they may also be a million other things before they are journalists. I don't know; it's really late right now (which may or may not explain my gloom), and I am thinking free speech can be very expensive. What are you thinking about?
Today, it's all Facebook this, Facebook that. The recent movie about Zuckerburg and the social networking site has added fuel to its ever-blazing fire.
But Michael Jones, president of Myspace, is trying to peer through the smoke to establish a strong future for Myspace.
Mr. Jones wants to refocus the website to reach Generation Y. “Over time, Myspace got very broad and lost focus of what its members were using it for,” said Mr. Jones (quote borrowed from NY Times).
How does Myspace stand a chance against Facebook and Twitter? It seems to have lost its relevance in our daily lives.
If you were on the PR team for Myspace, what steps would you take to revamp the image?
First, a new brand of Myspace needs to be established. What does Myspace offer that Facebook and Twitter can't/don't? What are the benefits of using Myspace?
I would also suggest to clean it up. The barrage of ads and links make it a daunting task to navigate.
Courtney, I agree with your post on MySpace. This Web site has very little relevance in our daily lives, and it will be difficult for it to make a comeback.
In my opinion, and as Courtney mentioned, MySpace is too visually cluttered. If you look at some of our most successful brands, consumers tend to favor simplicity. Google and Apple are prime examples of uncluttered products that captivate people and have many loyal fans. The look and feel of MySpace is chaotic and unappealing, in part because users can customize their own pages.
A visual overhaul of the site may attract a few users, but there needs to be a greater incentive for people to come to MySpace that is driven by content. As Courtney said, what does this site offer than Facebook and Twitter don’t have?
If I were on MySpace’s PR staff, I would revisit the organization’s true goals. The site was started as an online venue for bands and musicians to share news and music. I would recommend that MySpace repositions (or re-repositions?) itself as the premier site for bands, and a destination for music fans. This way, rather than competing with Facebook and YouTube, synergies could be created between the social networks and Web sites. For example, if you discovered a new band on MySpace, you could share its page on your Facebook profile for your friends to check out, driving traffic back to MySpace.
A recent Wall Street Journal article talked about one public university’s struggle to establish financial accountability. The college, Texas A&M, released data on the monetary gains and losses of the professors depending on salaries, grants, number of students, and other factors.
I am a product of a small, public college, where an academic scholarship covered my undergraduate tuition, and I’m now studying at a large, private university, where some of my tuition is covered by my employer. So, I've somehow managed to avoid student loans, and am therefore a bit naïve to the realities of the cost of college.
Compared to European institutions where higher education is free, American universities are notoriously expensive, especially private schools. Public state schools are comparatively economical, as they are run in part using taxpayers’ money. I agree that there needs to be transparency for public universities to disclose their academic progress. These schools have a responsibility to the state to graduate well-educated students, who will hopefully be able to join the workforce upon graduation. However, I’ve never thought my professors as better or worse depending on their financial gains for the school.
My family is of the mindset that education is a great investment. But, at what point does the American educational system go too far? Is there a feasible way to document spending that actually reflects how students are learning?
Comedy Central’s The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear brought to America by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert is to take place on Saturday on the Washington National Mall. The rally is in response to Glenn Beck’s rally and is expected to have a turnout of 150,000 people (but don’t expect any Associated Press or National Public Radio employees, their organizations aren’t allowing them to go).
Quick question; did we ever have sanity to be restored? I know we have fear, thanks to the code orange at the airport this week. With news organizations banning employees from attending and those offended because the rally is taking place on the Mall, next question is why is everyone taking this rally so seriously?
Don’t get me wrong, I find both men entertaining. Wit, sarcasm, and intelligent quips are all things I hold dear to my heart (though my mother sometimes confuses them as qualities of a smart ass). But what Stewart and Colbert do is entertain-perhaps with current events and politics, but it’s still entertainment.
But the issue is nearly one third of Americans under the age of 40 believe The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are taking over traditional outlets and a significant amount of young adults receive the news directly from these shows.
I’m happy that people enjoy the shows as much as I do, but what is disconcerting is people only watching the shows for the news and politicians fearing repercussions from this rally. Bear in mind, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report both air on COMEDY CENTRAL. It’s great if people learn about politics while watching them, but they certainly don’t encompass all current events. Perhaps the popularity of Colbert and Stewart speaks to the current climate for communication in politics and main stream journalism.
On Wednesday, President Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to appear on the faux news show The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Although Mr. Obama made appearances on the Late Show with David Letterman, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and The View, this was the first time a president appeared in a news comedy show.
Comedy Central’s program scored big with the ratings. The Daily Show, which usually attracts on average audiences of 1.9 million, drew 2.8 million viewers. But some say the numbers were shy.
Mr. Obama’s appearance was highly criticized by pundits as demeaning to the office of commander-in-chief. At one point during the exchange Mr. Stewart called the president “dude,” galvanizing the sentiment.
With Election Day approaching, Mr. Obama also was criticized by those who think he should be out campaigning for democrats, who are expected to lose their majority in Congress.
Overall, I thought the president did a “heckuva” job ('pun intended'). I disagree with those who said Mr. Stewart went easy on the president with his questions and that he was diplomatic for providing comic relief to distract from what they considered were the president's "gaffes."
Stewart’s disappointment with the president’s job was clear in his questioning. And naturally, the president was on the defensive. Mr. Stewart brought up some uncomfortable points such as how Obama ran on a campaign rhetoric of “change we can believe in,” and then hired Larry Summers who served in both Reagan’s and Clinton’s White Houses.
Stewart also asked the president if he would change his campaign’s “Yes we can” to “Yes we can, under certain circumstances.” To which the president replied, “I would say ‘Yes we can, but…’ (laughs) ‘it’s not going to happen overnight.’”
White House Press Secretary Gibbs said in a press briefing he thought the president's appearance was a "success." He also said Mr. Obama was satisfied with the interview's outcome.
I agree, the president stayed on topic and finished his thoughts eloquently even as Mr. Stewart tried to joke around his answers. The blogosphere, however, apparently begs to differ.
CNN reported that the number of Independents and non-declared voters is on the rise especially among young voters; 50 percent of registered voters ages 18-29 are declared independents. According to TheDailyBeast.com columnist John Avalon, one of the reasons independents are on the rise is because both political parties are more polarized than ever before. He also said that young people live in culture of ‘multiple choices,’ and having to pick a political party is not part of that culture.
Although the GOP has lost more voters (in terms of voter registration affiliation with the party), than Democrats to ‘Independents’ and ‘Non-declared’, polls show Independents largely favoring Republican candidates for the midterm elections.
Politico reported a survey that showed 62 percent of independents have an unfavorable opinion of health care legislation passed; 66 percent said recovery legislation (i.e. the stimulus package) is not working and 69% said they have less faith in government.
Senate midterm elections are usually low turnout elections but angry voters tend to come out and vote when they are mad. Although it is not clear how high or low Independents turnout will be, their vote is critical in the outcome of elections; Independents in Republican states helped elect President Barack Obama.
As CNN’s Soledad O’Brien said, it is unclear whether Independents feel they will be better served by electing Republicans such as Sharron Angle in Nevada, or Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and will vote for these candidates, or whether they will sit this election out.
Regardless of your political affiliation, my advice is: exercise your right to vote on November 2nd!
As usual, thoughtful and provocative posts from our posting cadre, which doesn't seem to have grown (ahem). There's even some capstone material here. My favorite Edward Bernays phrase, "the docile masses," also comes to mind. Is "comedy" now news or entertainment? Does the president's appearance on such shows diminish the office, or is the president "just like us" after all?
Those are PR questions. I'm glad to see you're recognizing them and blogging about them. There's no right answer, which is what makes this field fun.
As for the cost of higher education, what can I say? It is a business like everything else, but, as a customer, you get a longer-term payoff from your purchase than you do from most other products. As Rachel says, it's an investment; a BMW is not despite its potential resale value.
Keep blogging. I don't see major writing issues, but, Miryam (and everyone), watch those (missing) semicolons.
I'll start a new post so we don't scroll all the way to China—or to the Lower East Side.
In another class I'm taking, I was assigned to write a blog post this week about any (for-profit) company's use of social media. Some of the information I found was extremely interesting, and I thought it might be a good topic for the blog.
The company I wrote about was Whole Foods.
First of all, Whole Foods uses Facebook. Yes, many businesses have Facebook pages, but Whole Foods has Facebook pages for individual stores all over the country. This means Whole Foods maintains over 200 Facebook pages. Some of these pages are extremely active, but others are not. However, the idea behind them is what’s most important. The pages aren’t designed to collect fans, but instead they are platforms of interaction. Whole Foods stresses the importance of local, home-grown products, and it has now expanded that idea with its use of social media.
Whole Foods also has an incredibly successful Twitter page. One article I read cited it as the “most popular retailer on Twitter.” In a Q&A with Marla Erwin, the company’s Interactive Art Director, she said that about 90% of the output on Twitter is in direct response to consumers’ questions. When consumers get responses to their questions on Twitter, they undoubtedly feel like they are being heard. Along with the company’s main Twitter site, it also has special accounts for cheese, wine, recipes and individual stores.
Lastly, Whole Foods also maintains a blog that incorporates some of the content that’s available in its other social media channels. The site offers videos and recipes, but most importantly, it has stories like this one, which tells of the experience 25 Whole Foods employees had volunteering at a school in Guatemala. (http://blog.wholefoodsmarket.com/2010/10/tm-guatemala/) These stories help to humanize the company by putting faces and values on the Whole Foods brand.
Since social media is still a relatively new tool, companies can become leaders in their industry if they use it correctly. Whole Foods doesn’t wait to see what its competition is doing. Instead, it finds ways it can build relationships with its customers and makes the most of them.
Do you know of any company’s who use social media in innovative ways?
I think you raised a great point regarding Barack Obama’s appearance on The Daily Show. It’s funny to think how much the presidency has changed over the years. Even as little as thirty years ago, presidents would have never engaged in media the way they do now.
To me, the question his appearance begged was this: Why does he feel the need to go on to these shows at all? He’s not making appearances on 60 Minutes or other long-running news programs, either. He’s going on shows taken less seriously like The View and now The Daily Show. What’s the point? Does it make him seem less credible?
To older generations, I think he does appear less credible. Instead of speaking publically on a few select television shows, it seems like he accepts any offer to get on television that’s thrown his way. Going on Jon Stewart’s show wasn’t going to give him any sort of uninterrupted platform for him to express his views anyway.
However, I think Barack Obama is a special case all together. He used social media to give his presidential campaign momentum from the beginning. His campaign was directed at young people, women and minorities, and it seems like that’s the audience he’s trying to capture through his appearances on all of these shows. Some young people watch programming like The Daily Show to get their news (sad, but true), and Obama seems to be taking advantage of that.
I think the line must be drawn somewhere. Even for me as a young person, seeing my president on a show like The View makes him less credible.
I think you are right, the president is reaching out to young people and Independents to help Democrats keep their majority in Congress. But honestly, I don't think these appearances make the president less credible. These shows reach a different audience than shows like 60 Minutes and these appearances humanize the president.
After all, I want my president to be accessible and relatable (a.k.a. human). But that doesn't mean I would like him on Jerry Springer (possibly taking a paternity test) to reach that audience or making a cameo on 30 Rock just because I like the show. (You are right, there should be a line somewhere and it doesn't have to be this low. I'm being dramatic!)
But Stewart is a sharp guy with an unusual ability to follow the interview's thread and veer off script. I would be nervous if any of my future clients was to sit with him for a one-on-one.
Overall, I had fun watching it. I thought the president did a great job. He took it seriously but still had a few laughs. He spoke candidly, and even voiced his disagreement with Stewart on the health care bill. It was a priceless exchange between the leader that we elected and someone who can represent us (young people) more appropriately than say, Brian WIlliams or Diane Sawyer.
Now when you are transiting the busy Manhattan streets beware of the reckless 4 year olds driving their training bicycles. Certainly it is not enough that we have to be alert for the coursing-taxi drivers, the crazy joggers, the threatening huge buses, regular cars, chariots, mad cyclist and even crazy pedestrians. I was surprised when I read this news in The New York Times. I’m not a psychologist, a pre-school teacher, anthropologist or any kind of human behavior expert. I’m just the mother of two. Based on my experience, I think that 4 year olds hardly know how to locate the own belly buttons. They are clueless, exploring and testing boundaries. It is the parent’s job to teach children right form wrong and to protect them. We protect our kids in any way we can, we block stairs, we cover the electrical plugs, we bathe them, feed them etc. Educating our kids on how to interact with the rest of the world is also a way to protect them. Parents need to monitor children’s behavior so they can educate. Yes, I will put the responsibility on the mothers that were with the children the day of the accident. I also know from experience that mothers get tired, overwhelmed and some times we look for a little moment for ourselves. I know that you can get distracted in a conversation and kids can get into trouble in the snap of a second. I know, without fear of falling into a cliché, that we are only human. Children come to the world with and invisible tattoo that says: RESPONSIBILITY. There comes an age when parents start loosing control of their children’s acts. Children develop judgment by experience, learn what is good or bad and stand on their on but not at four years old.
I wanted to address the recent appearance of President Obama on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
Julia asked in her post why is he choosing to make appearances on shows that are “taken less seriously” than shows like 60 Minutes. I agree that shows like The View don’t carry the same investigative hard-hitting journalism that other programs do. But I find it hard to believe that there was not a lot of thought put into what shows Mr. Obama would appear on. For example, his appearance on The View had a larger female audience reach than say 60 Minutes.
As for his appearance on The Daily Show, I thought it was a smart move. The audience for Stewart’s show “are more likely to hold a four-year degree than those watching ‘The O’Reilly Factor’” according to Nielsen research. And the average age of viewers is roughly 44 and a half. Stewart’s audience is the prime target for his midterm election campaign. They are active at the polls and have incomes that allow them to support political causes. Does Stewart’s audience view him as a serious newsman? No, that’s why his show is considered a satirical newscast.
In my opinion this is excellent public relations strategy for Mr. Obama. He is addressing his target audience on their terms (meaning shows). It allows him to look approachable and concerned with the same issues as the public that elected him. These appearances will prove beneficial.
What surprises me is that so many people seem shocked that he would make these appearances. After all, he was the first president to use text messaging in his presidential campaign. He’s clearly not afraid to step out of the box and take a risk. Even though I’m fairly certain these “risks” are well researched and planned.
On the discussions of Obama's appearance on The Daily Show:
I posted on this topic on one of the other threads, but to keep the discussion flowing I wanted to comment on the concerns people have with the president using these new platforms to communicate.
While I certainly understand why some people may not understand his thought process for appearing on shows like The View and The Daily Show, I think it is a very smart public relations move. Obama is reaching new audiences. By appearing on The View, he is reaching women and by appearing on The Daily Show he is reaching young people. While these two shows may not been seen as credible hard news sources, they may be the only news source for certain people. In my opinion this makes it an effective method to reach and get new people engaged.
Everyone has read the tragic stories about children and teens committing suicide after being subjected to bullying. The “It Gets Better” campaign was launched by columnist Dan Savage after he learned of the suicide of an 11 year-old boy who was constantly teased about his sexuality. Heartbroken over this loss, Savage wanted to find a way to communicate with children facing similar situations. This is when the “It Gets Better” campaign was launched. Savage created a video talking to children about his experiences. He wanted to provide gay children with hope and tell them from firsthand experience that “it gets better”. Savage posted his video on YouTube and launched the “It Gets Better” channel. Since this first video was created, Savage’s message has been viewed over one million times and more than 700 posts have been added to the channel. Everyone from Perez Hilton and Khloe Kardashian to President Obama and Hilary Clinton has posted a message.
The reach of this campaign is a demonstration of the power of grassroots public relations. It also shows how much more effective grassroots public relations can be with the expansion of social media. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube provide people with the platforms to communicate to a wider audience without needing to go through traditional stages to get a message heard. There is no longer a need to get permission to speak up. By creating such a strong platform the campaign has become a national phenomena and a book deal has even been signed. Looking at this from a public relations standpoint, I think the success of the “It Gets Better” campaign speaks to the ever evolving media and provides an incredible case study for both grassroots public relations and social media as the sole communication vehicle in a campaign.
After the Juan Williams, Rick Sanchez and Helen Thomas controversies, it suddenly hit me that freedom of speech isn't free at all. It is neither free in terms of price nor free in terms of boundary- you can't just say what you mean sometimes; and if you do, you surely will pay the consequences. Everybody loses in this sandstorm because it shows we are not ready as a society to openly and respectfully discuss our differences, feelings and/or fears. Until we evolve into a society that can express its feelings honestly in a language that isn’t offensive and with a heart that is free from hatred; until we are able to engage in an open dialogue that is free from bigotry and intolerance, only then, will we have unconditional freedom of speech. But until then, we must conform to the politically correct establishment.
ReplyDeleteI am purposely discounting the fact that Mr. Williams, Mr. Sanchez and Ms. Thomas are bound by journalistic ethics and standards because first and foremost they are humans entitled to make mistakes; they are also citizens, whose freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution; they may also be a million other things before they are journalists.
I don't know; it's really late right now (which may or may not explain my gloom), and I am thinking free speech can be very expensive. What are you thinking about?
Revamping Myspace... Does it have a chance??
ReplyDeleteToday, it's all Facebook this, Facebook that. The recent movie about Zuckerburg and the social networking site has added fuel to its ever-blazing fire.
But Michael Jones, president of Myspace, is trying to peer through the smoke to establish a strong future for Myspace.
Mr. Jones wants to refocus the website to reach Generation Y. “Over time, Myspace got very broad and lost focus of what its members were using it for,” said Mr. Jones (quote borrowed from NY Times).
How does Myspace stand a chance against Facebook and Twitter? It seems to have lost its relevance in our daily lives.
If you were on the PR team for Myspace, what steps would you take to revamp the image?
First, a new brand of Myspace needs to be established. What does Myspace offer that Facebook and Twitter can't/don't? What are the benefits of using Myspace?
I would also suggest to clean it up. The barrage of ads and links make it a daunting task to navigate.
I'm curious to see if anyone else has any ideas.
Courtney, I agree with your post on MySpace. This Web site has very little relevance in our daily lives, and it will be difficult for it to make a comeback.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, and as Courtney mentioned, MySpace is too visually cluttered. If you look at some of our most successful brands, consumers tend to favor simplicity. Google and Apple are prime examples of uncluttered products that captivate people and have many loyal fans. The look and feel of MySpace is chaotic and unappealing, in part because users can customize their own pages.
A visual overhaul of the site may attract a few users, but there needs to be a greater incentive for people to come to MySpace that is driven by content. As Courtney said, what does this site offer than Facebook and Twitter don’t have?
If I were on MySpace’s PR staff, I would revisit the organization’s true goals. The site was started as an online venue for bands and musicians to share news and music. I would recommend that MySpace repositions (or re-repositions?) itself as the premier site for bands, and a destination for music fans. This way, rather than competing with Facebook and YouTube, synergies could be created between the social networks and Web sites. For example, if you discovered a new band on MySpace, you could share its page on your Facebook profile for your friends to check out, driving traffic back to MySpace.
A recent Wall Street Journal article talked about one public university’s struggle to establish financial accountability. The college, Texas A&M, released data on the monetary gains and losses of the professors depending on salaries, grants, number of students, and other factors.
ReplyDeleteI am a product of a small, public college, where an academic scholarship covered my undergraduate tuition, and I’m now studying at a large, private university, where some of my tuition is covered by my employer. So, I've somehow managed to avoid student loans, and am therefore a bit naïve to the realities of the cost of college.
Compared to European institutions where higher education is free, American universities are notoriously expensive, especially private schools. Public state schools are comparatively economical, as they are run in part using taxpayers’ money. I agree that there needs to be transparency for public universities to disclose their academic progress. These schools have a responsibility to the state to graduate well-educated students, who will hopefully be able to join the workforce upon graduation. However, I’ve never thought my professors as better or worse depending on their financial gains for the school.
My family is of the mindset that education is a great investment. But, at what point does the American educational system go too far? Is there a feasible way to document spending that actually reflects how students are learning?
WSJ Article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703735804575536322093520994.html
Comedy Central’s The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear brought to America by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert is to take place on Saturday on the Washington National Mall. The rally is in response to Glenn Beck’s rally and is expected to have a turnout of 150,000 people (but don’t expect any Associated Press or National Public Radio employees, their organizations aren’t allowing them to go).
ReplyDeleteQuick question; did we ever have sanity to be restored? I know we have fear, thanks to the code orange at the airport this week. With news organizations banning employees from attending and those offended because the rally is taking place on the Mall, next question is why is everyone taking this rally so seriously?
Don’t get me wrong, I find both men entertaining. Wit, sarcasm, and intelligent quips are all things I hold dear to my heart (though my mother sometimes confuses them as qualities of a smart ass). But what Stewart and Colbert do is entertain-perhaps with current events and politics, but it’s still entertainment.
But the issue is nearly one third of Americans under the age of 40 believe The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are taking over traditional outlets and a significant amount of young adults receive the news directly from these shows.
I’m happy that people enjoy the shows as much as I do, but what is disconcerting is people only watching the shows for the news and politicians fearing repercussions from this rally. Bear in mind, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report both air on COMEDY CENTRAL. It’s great if people learn about politics while watching them, but they certainly don’t encompass all current events. Perhaps the popularity of Colbert and Stewart speaks to the current climate for communication in politics and main stream journalism.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn Wednesday, President Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to appear on the faux news show The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Although Mr. Obama made appearances on the Late Show with David Letterman, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and The View, this was the first time a president appeared in a news comedy show.
ReplyDeleteComedy Central’s program scored big with the ratings. The Daily Show, which usually attracts on average audiences of 1.9 million, drew 2.8 million viewers. But some say the numbers were shy.
Mr. Obama’s appearance was highly criticized by pundits as demeaning to the office of commander-in-chief. At one point during the exchange Mr. Stewart called the president “dude,” galvanizing the sentiment.
With Election Day approaching, Mr. Obama also was criticized by those who think he should be out campaigning for democrats, who are expected to lose their majority in Congress.
Overall, I thought the president did a “heckuva” job ('pun intended'). I disagree with those who said Mr. Stewart went easy on the president with his questions and that he was diplomatic for providing comic relief to distract from what they considered were the president's "gaffes."
Stewart’s disappointment with the president’s job was clear in his questioning. And naturally, the president was on the defensive. Mr. Stewart brought up some uncomfortable points such as how Obama ran on a campaign rhetoric of “change we can believe in,” and then hired Larry Summers who served in both Reagan’s and Clinton’s White Houses.
Stewart also asked the president if he would change his campaign’s “Yes we can” to “Yes we can, under certain circumstances.” To which the president replied, “I would say ‘Yes we can, but…’ (laughs) ‘it’s not going to happen overnight.’”
White House Press Secretary Gibbs said in a press briefing he thought the president's appearance was a "success." He also said Mr. Obama was satisfied with the interview's outcome.
I agree, the president stayed on topic and finished his thoughts eloquently even as Mr. Stewart tried to joke around his answers. The blogosphere, however, apparently begs to differ.
CNN reported that the number of Independents and non-declared voters is on the rise especially among young voters; 50 percent of registered voters ages 18-29 are declared independents. According to TheDailyBeast.com columnist John Avalon, one of the reasons independents are on the rise is because both political parties are more polarized than ever before. He also said that young people live in culture of ‘multiple choices,’ and having to pick a political party is not part of that culture.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the GOP has lost more voters (in terms of voter registration affiliation with the party), than Democrats to ‘Independents’ and ‘Non-declared’, polls show Independents largely favoring Republican candidates for the midterm elections.
Politico reported a survey that showed 62 percent of independents have an unfavorable opinion of health care legislation passed; 66 percent said recovery legislation (i.e. the stimulus package) is not working and 69% said they have less faith in government.
Senate midterm elections are usually low turnout elections but angry voters tend to come out and vote when they are mad. Although it is not clear how high or low Independents turnout will be, their vote is critical in the outcome of elections; Independents in Republican states helped elect President Barack Obama.
As CNN’s Soledad O’Brien said, it is unclear whether Independents feel they will be better served by electing Republicans such as Sharron Angle in Nevada, or Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and will vote for these candidates, or whether they will sit this election out.
Regardless of your political affiliation, my advice is: exercise your right to vote on November 2nd!
As usual, thoughtful and provocative posts from our posting cadre, which doesn't seem to have grown (ahem). There's even some capstone material here. My favorite Edward Bernays phrase, "the docile masses," also comes to mind. Is "comedy" now news or entertainment? Does the president's appearance on such shows diminish the office, or is the president "just like us" after all?
ReplyDeleteThose are PR questions. I'm glad to see you're recognizing them and blogging about them. There's no right answer, which is what makes this field fun.
As for the cost of higher education, what can I say? It is a business like everything else, but, as a customer, you get a longer-term payoff from your purchase than you do from most other products. As Rachel says, it's an investment; a BMW is not despite its potential resale value.
Keep blogging. I don't see major writing issues, but, Miryam (and everyone), watch those (missing) semicolons.
I'll start a new post so we don't scroll all the way to China—or to the Lower East Side.
In another class I'm taking, I was assigned to write a blog post this week about any (for-profit) company's use of social media. Some of the information I found was extremely interesting, and I thought it might be a good topic for the blog.
ReplyDeleteThe company I wrote about was Whole Foods.
First of all, Whole Foods uses Facebook. Yes, many businesses have Facebook pages, but Whole Foods has Facebook pages for individual stores all over the country. This means Whole Foods maintains over 200 Facebook pages. Some of these pages are extremely active, but others are not. However, the idea behind them is what’s most important. The pages aren’t designed to collect fans, but instead they are platforms of interaction. Whole Foods stresses the importance of local, home-grown products, and it has now expanded that idea with its use of social media.
Whole Foods also has an incredibly successful Twitter page. One article I read cited it as the “most popular retailer on Twitter.” In a Q&A with Marla Erwin, the company’s Interactive Art Director, she said that about 90% of the output on Twitter is in direct response to consumers’ questions. When consumers get responses to their questions on Twitter, they undoubtedly feel like they are being heard. Along with the company’s main Twitter site, it also has special accounts for cheese, wine, recipes and individual stores.
Lastly, Whole Foods also maintains a blog that incorporates some of the content that’s available in its other social media channels. The site offers videos and recipes, but most importantly, it has stories like this one, which tells of the experience 25 Whole Foods employees had volunteering at a school in Guatemala. (http://blog.wholefoodsmarket.com/2010/10/tm-guatemala/) These stories help to humanize the company by putting faces and values on the Whole Foods brand.
Since social media is still a relatively new tool, companies can become leaders in their industry if they use it correctly. Whole Foods doesn’t wait to see what its competition is doing. Instead, it finds ways it can build relationships with its customers and makes the most of them.
Do you know of any company’s who use social media in innovative ways?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteElba-
ReplyDeleteI think you raised a great point regarding Barack Obama’s appearance on The Daily Show. It’s funny to think how much the presidency has changed over the years. Even as little as thirty years ago, presidents would have never engaged in media the way they do now.
To me, the question his appearance begged was this: Why does he feel the need to go on to these shows at all? He’s not making appearances on 60 Minutes or other long-running news programs, either. He’s going on shows taken less seriously like The View and now The Daily Show. What’s the point? Does it make him seem less credible?
To older generations, I think he does appear less credible. Instead of speaking publically on a few select television shows, it seems like he accepts any offer to get on television that’s thrown his way. Going on Jon Stewart’s show wasn’t going to give him any sort of uninterrupted platform for him to express his views anyway.
However, I think Barack Obama is a special case all together. He used social media to give his presidential campaign momentum from the beginning. His campaign was directed at young people, women and minorities, and it seems like that’s the audience he’s trying to capture through his appearances on all of these shows. Some young people watch programming like The Daily Show to get their news (sad, but true), and Obama seems to be taking advantage of that.
I think the line must be drawn somewhere. Even for me as a young person, seeing my president on a show like The View makes him less credible.
What do you think?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJulia,
ReplyDeleteI think you are right, the president is reaching out to young people and Independents to help Democrats keep their majority in Congress. But honestly, I don't think these appearances make the president less credible. These shows reach a different audience than shows like 60 Minutes and these appearances humanize the president.
After all, I want my president to be accessible and relatable (a.k.a. human). But that doesn't mean I would like him on Jerry Springer (possibly taking a paternity test) to reach that audience or making a cameo on 30 Rock just because I like the show. (You are right, there should be a line somewhere and it doesn't have to be this low. I'm being dramatic!)
But Stewart is a sharp guy with an unusual ability to follow the interview's thread and veer off script. I would be nervous if any of my future clients was to sit with him for a one-on-one.
Overall, I had fun watching it. I thought the president did a great job. He took it seriously but still had a few laughs. He spoke candidly, and even voiced his disagreement with Stewart on the health care bill. It was a priceless exchange between the leader that we elected and someone who can represent us (young people) more appropriately than say, Brian WIlliams or Diane Sawyer.
Now when you are transiting the busy Manhattan streets beware of the reckless 4 year olds driving their training bicycles. Certainly it is not enough that we have to be alert for the coursing-taxi drivers, the crazy joggers, the threatening huge buses, regular cars, chariots, mad cyclist and even crazy pedestrians. I was surprised when I read this news in The New York Times. I’m not a psychologist, a pre-school teacher, anthropologist or any kind of human behavior expert. I’m just the mother of two. Based on my experience, I think that 4 year olds hardly know how to locate the own belly buttons. They are clueless, exploring and testing boundaries. It is the parent’s job to teach children right form wrong and to protect them. We protect our kids in any way we can, we block stairs, we cover the electrical plugs, we bathe them, feed them etc. Educating our kids on how to interact with the rest of the world is also a way to protect them. Parents need to monitor children’s behavior so they can educate. Yes, I will put the responsibility on the mothers that were with the children the day of the accident.
ReplyDeleteI also know from experience that mothers get tired, overwhelmed and some times we look for a little moment for ourselves. I know that you can get distracted in a conversation and kids can get into trouble in the snap of a second. I know, without fear of falling into a cliché, that we are only human. Children come to the world with and invisible tattoo that says: RESPONSIBILITY. There comes an age when parents start loosing control of their children’s acts. Children develop judgment by experience, learn what is good or bad and stand on their on but not at four years old.
I wanted to address the recent appearance of President Obama on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
ReplyDeleteJulia asked in her post why is he choosing to make appearances on shows that are “taken less seriously” than shows like 60 Minutes. I agree that shows like The View don’t carry the same investigative hard-hitting journalism that other programs do. But I find it hard to believe that there was not a lot of thought put into what shows Mr. Obama would appear on. For example, his appearance on The View had a larger female audience reach than say 60 Minutes.
As for his appearance on The Daily Show, I thought it was a smart move. The audience for Stewart’s show “are more likely to hold a four-year degree than those watching ‘The O’Reilly Factor’” according to Nielsen research. And the average age of viewers is roughly 44 and a half. Stewart’s audience is the prime target for his midterm election campaign. They are active at the polls and have incomes that allow them to support political causes. Does Stewart’s audience view him as a serious newsman? No, that’s why his show is considered a satirical newscast.
In my opinion this is excellent public relations strategy for Mr. Obama. He is addressing his target audience on their terms (meaning shows). It allows him to look approachable and concerned with the same issues as the public that elected him. These appearances will prove beneficial.
What surprises me is that so many people seem shocked that he would make these appearances. After all, he was the first president to use text messaging in his presidential campaign. He’s clearly not afraid to step out of the box and take a risk. Even though I’m fairly certain these “risks” are well researched and planned.
On the discussions of Obama's appearance on The Daily Show:
ReplyDeleteI posted on this topic on one of the other threads, but to keep the discussion flowing I wanted to comment on the concerns people have with the president using these new platforms to communicate.
While I certainly understand why some people may not understand his thought process for appearing on shows like The View and The Daily Show, I think it is a very smart public relations move. Obama is reaching new audiences. By appearing on The View, he is reaching women and by appearing on The Daily Show he is reaching young people. While these two shows may not been seen as credible hard news sources, they may be the only news source for certain people. In my opinion this makes it an effective method to reach and get new people engaged.
Everyone has read the tragic stories about children and teens committing suicide after being subjected to bullying. The “It Gets Better” campaign was launched by columnist Dan Savage after he learned of the suicide of an 11 year-old boy who was constantly teased about his sexuality. Heartbroken over this loss, Savage wanted to find a way to communicate with children facing similar situations. This is when the “It Gets Better” campaign was launched. Savage created a video talking to children about his experiences. He wanted to provide gay children with hope and tell them from firsthand experience that “it gets better”. Savage posted his video on YouTube and launched the “It Gets Better” channel. Since this first video was created, Savage’s message has been viewed over one million times and more than 700 posts have been added to the channel. Everyone from Perez Hilton and Khloe Kardashian to President Obama and Hilary Clinton has posted a message.
ReplyDeleteThe reach of this campaign is a demonstration of the power of grassroots public relations.
It also shows how much more effective grassroots public relations can be with the expansion of social media. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube provide people with the platforms to communicate to a wider audience without needing to go through traditional stages to get a message heard. There is no longer a need to get permission to speak up. By creating such a strong platform the campaign has become a national phenomena and a book deal has even been signed. Looking at this from a public relations standpoint, I think the success of the “It Gets Better” campaign speaks to the ever evolving media and provides an incredible case study for both grassroots public relations and social media as the sole communication vehicle in a campaign.