The Flack

A fascinating story in Sunday's New York Times that explores the rise of low-cost, but effective (and infectious) consumer-generated videos that advocate for and against the Presidential candidates.

Its focus was Robert Greenwald whom I briefly met in the press room at last week's Personal Democracy Forum. It was his video that forced Sen. McCain to disavow his evangelical buddies Revs. Paisley and Hagee.

There's little news in story of consumer-generated media's influence on politics, brands and reputations. As PR practitioners, we have warily eyed it for a couple of years now.

What caught this PR pro's wary eye was the way in which political operatives have attempted to channel these amateur videos to advance their interests. Some cost as little as $100 to produce, but have garnered more visits than NBC's "Meet the Press." The Times's Jim Rutenberg writes:

"The change has added to the frenetic pace of the campaign this year. 'It’s politics at the speed of Internet,' said Dan Carol, a strategist for Mr. Obama who was one of the young bulls on Bill Clinton’s vaunted rapid response team in 1992. 'There’s just a lot of people who at a very low cost can do this stuff and don’t need a memo from HQ.'

A former Mitt Romney strategist shared one tactic for countering the spate of unflattering amateur campaign videos aimed at his boss:

"It flooded YouTube with positive videos of Mr. Romney. 'The new model of response is to dominate the market share of information about your candidate,' said Kevin Madden, Mr. Romney’s former press secretary."

Mr. Greenwald, whose documentary work I've followed over the last few years (Sorry, Bob, I wasn't a fan of "Xanadu or "Burning Bed"), is doing his share to ensure that Mr. McCain takes this same "labor intensive" tack. Furthermore, Greenwald sums up in one quote just how far a shift we've seen from MSM to CGM for influencing the court of public oponion:

“For years I sat in conversations with people who said the only way we can be effective is we have to raise $1 billion and buy CBS,” Mr. Greenwald said. “Well, Google raised a couple of billion and bought YouTube, and it’s here for us, and it’s a huge, huge difference.”

Now we just have to gain a better understanding of how to empower the "groundswell" to channel its passions -- hopefully with our clients' interests in mind. One such model launched recently from the Obama campaign:

Three weeks ago, the Obama campaign started a Web site called “Fight the Smears” to, among other things, debunk portrayals of Mr. Obama as Muslim. It allows its users to e-mail the information easily to friends.

“What we’re really trying to do is knock down important things that are wrong, which also diminishes the power of the next set of rumors,” said Mr. Carol, the Obama aide.

OK So we can't "control" the motivated masses, but we can give them the tools to help further our goals, can't we?

Labels: consumer generated media, Fight the Smears, groundswell, politics, Rev. Paisely, Robert Greenwald, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, YouTube

Junior Mints, Drake's Coffee Cake, jujubes, Bosco (!)... You know what I'm talking about, don't you?

Yesterday, the FCC agreed to re-evaluate how TV programmers inform their viewers of the paid product placements that surreptitiously appear in scripted fare.

It's one thing for Seinfeld to drop the names of his favorite cult snacks -- without a pay-off from the product makers -- but quite another for ABC's Extreme Home Makeover to air an hour-long commercial for Sears and its proprietary product lines like Craftsman, Kenmore, etc. - all with but a fleeting scroll of an acknowledgment in the show's closing credits.

The issue revolves less around the existence of these products in the programming, especially since technology-driven market forces today mandate new revenue streams across all entertainment channels. Rather, it concerns the way in which broadcasters disclose these paid commercial relationships to their viewers.

"The point of this whole exercise is to clarify what's required so that viewers actually know who is trying to sell them on something," said commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, who has been pushing for better disclosure for three years.

The issue of product placement, in which brand-name items are used as props in shows, is not new and has not generated much controversy. It is the practice of insinuating products into actual plot lines, known as embedded advertising or "product integration," that has raised concern.

Interestingly, the writers of these programs also have taken issue with the commercial fare foisted on their creative output, especially without their getting paid:

The Writers Guild of America West, a union that represents Hollywood television and film screenwriters, wants "real time" disclosure at the time the product is mentioned, like a text "crawl" at the bottom of the screen.

"Since DVRs and other such devices allow viewers to skip or fast forward through opening and closing credits, requiring disclosure at some other moment in the programming will simply not offer adequate protection," wrote Patric Verrone, president of the organization, in a letter to Martin.

As for PR people, we too learned our lesson that it's not nice to fool the public. TV news and talk show producers have long since gotten wise to paid third-party "expert" spokespersons who secretly shill for a product or service. Full-disclosure upfront is now (hopefully) a standard PR practice, or at least we hope so.

Labels: advertising, extreme home makeover, FCC, Jerry Seinfeld, PR, product placements, Television, TIVO, Writers Guild of America

If authenticity is the new PR buzzword, then who's going to explain it to Sen. Obama's PR consiglieres?

Didn't anyone learn anything from the faux photo-ops and canned colloquialisms deployed by the Bushies to intentionally deceive the public these last seven years?

Americans so desperately want a commander-in-chief with a reasonable command of the English language, but without the command and control means of manufacturing an image, no matter how divorced from reality that image may be.

I have this sudden fear that the Democrats, in their inimitable and historical way, are going to blow it big time come November. It's nothing in particular, just a few tell-tale signs that the PR handlers still are obsessed with style over substance.

To address the lingering perception that a schism still exists within the Democratic Party, the Senators from New York and Illinois will jet to New Hampshire on Friday for a joint appearance in, where else, Unity, New Hampshire (population 1,715) .

Aargh! Couldn't one of the David Axelrod's brainstrusts come up with something better than Unity, NH? (It reminds me of Bayer's wellness living laboratory years ago in Wellsburg, West Virginia.) Worse, it reminds me of Mission Accomplished and Bush in a flight suit. It simply smacks of artificiality, and this PR vet will not be the only one who notices.

You simply can't fake unity, no matter how expedient the name of that town may be. In fact, I suspect that by holding the rally in Unity, Senator Obama's PR handlers may actually produce the opposite effect of the one they intended. As Politico's Ben Smith observes: "No symbolism is too direct for a Presidential campaign."

Then again, perhaps this is the kind of kitsch Americans love?

Update 6.27: Obama Gives $2300 toward Clinton debt. Now this is authentic.

Labels: Hillary Clinton, New Hampshire, politics, PR, presidential campaign, public relations, Senator Obama, Unity

If given the choice, I'd rather go toe-to-toe with a smart, objective journalist than one who artificially seeks balance where balance may not even exist. In this way a cogent presentation of the facts may actually result in a fair hearing and an end editorial product that reflects reality. What more can we ask of the media filter?

Yesterday at the Personal Democracy Forum, Arianna Huffington delivered a "blistering indictment" of the "old" news media for its "...illusion of neutrality instead of ferreting out the truth.” Kit Seelye, the Times's former newspaper industry reporter who now toils on the political beat, writes in The Caucus blog:

"As an example, she [Huffington] pointed to the debate over global warming and said journalists stood in the middle presenting the public with two sides. 'We wasted years debating in that way,' she said. But the truth isn’t splitting the difference, she said, and often 'there is no other side.'”

Of course, Ms. Huffington is right. Most journalists enter into a reporting situation either with a pre-conceived (and often implacable) story premise, or with the goal of obtaining balance even when the overriding evidence doesn't warrant that both sides be equally represented.

I remember one persistent issue we faced in our eight-year effort to bring the National World War II Memorial to fruition. In spite of the unwavering support from millions of World War II veterans, one small, but aggressive group of antagonists identified two vets who didn't support the Memorial's proposed location. The group positioned its vets as representative of all veterans, and the media bought it hook, line and sinker -- under the guise of journalistic balance.

As the growth of news commentary continues its suffocation of the media landscape, i.e., cable, talk radio and a myriad of opinionated bloggers, we cannot underestimate the value and importance of fact-based journalism that seeks to "ferret" out the truth. We need more journalists who strive for balance when it exists, and dismiss efforts by special interests who decry a lack of balance (i.e., the so-called "liberal media") as a ploy to advance their unsubstantiated POV.

Come to think of it, I remember getting a call from Ms. Huffington, the columnist, during the WW II Memorial debate. She too bought into the anti-Memorial sentiment.

Labels: arianna huffington, journalism, media bias, Personal Democracy Forum, World War II Memorial

There's something about buses that draw designated message-drivers from a wide swath of the PR spectrum. My first mobile PR experience entailed publicizing a large bus-like motor home outfitted with floor-to-ceiling, trompe l'oeil-style photographs on its walls. It showed the interiors of a typical Courtyard by Marriott hotel room.

Marriott Corp. marked its first brand extension by touring the mobile menagerie to office parks around the country in an effort to bring the faux room to lunching office workers. O.J. and the B-M special events team may even have added a couch and a bed to complete the physical experience.

Years later, Radio City mounted the Rockettes rolling tour of New York metro-area shopping malls in an effort to kick-up interest in the summer version of the Christmas Spectacular. A couple of Rockettes, dressed in their civvies, rode on the bus. We were charged with generating local press at each stop. Ahhh, what a glam profession PR can be! (I'll skip the crisis work we did for Greyhound after one of its drivers went berserk.)

Today, we're saddled with the "Straight Talk Express," Senator McCain's mobile billboard that snidely seeks to preserve the persona that propelled his presidential prospects. Bused messages are a most bi-partisan affair as evidenced by the kick-off today of the "Bush Legacy Tour," which features a carefully curated mobile exhibit of the failings of this administration.

The Bush Legacy Tour offers a tried-and-true communications vehicle to remind memory-challenged Americans of the seven-year criminal assault this administration has made on their way of life. Straight talk is one thing, fact-based evidence on display, quite another. Oh, and let's not forget "Off the Bus," the Jay Rosen-Arianna Huffington citizen-journalist fueled effort to report on this year's election.

Labels: buses, Bush Legacy Tour, Courtyard by Marriott, Off-the-Bus, politics, PR, Radio City, Rockettes, Straight Talk Express

I'm gearing up to moderate a Business Wire panel on Tuesday morning called, "A Social Media Conversation: How PR, IR and Marketing Professionals Can Engage and Participate in the Social Web." (Now that's a mouthful!) The punditry includes:

• Converseon CEO Rob Key
  
• TNS/Cymfony Chief Marketing and Strategy Officer Jim Nail
  
• Engadget Editor-in-Chief, Ryan Block
  
• Google Senior Business Product Manager for Google News Josh Cohen
  
• Reprise Media Managing Partner Peter Hershberg, and
  
• The Knot Senior PR Manager Melissa Bauer
  

"...host a series of roundtable discussions, parties and exhibits that showcase the vast creativity of Residents as well as groundbreaking organizational uses of the Second Life platform."

Labels: business wire, buzz, linden labs, Mark Kingdon, PR, Second Life, social media, virtual worlds

It's simply the nature of the beast. As much as the Obama campaign insists it will forgo the saccharine opaqueness and command & control ways of the Bush PR machine, the need to "manage" his public image remains paramount if the Illinois Senator ever expects to get elected.

There's nothing new here. Joe McGinness first threw open the political image-making paradigm 40 years ago in his book The Selling of the President (as opposed Theodore White's The Making of the President eight years earlier). So I ask:

• Will the Senator's staged photo ops now go unstaged?
• Will the Democratic candidate now enter a debate without preparation?
• What about advance prep for media interviews?
  
• Will the choice of campaign stops, and the story lines they spur, just kind of happen?
  

No, no, no and no.

Some years ago, I had the fortune (excuse the pun) to lead the media strategy for the re-design of the U.S. currency. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing started with the $100 bill and worked its way down to the $50, $20, etc. I distinctly remember the "event" we held for the new $50. It took place outside of New York's Radio City Music Hall on whose marquee the words read: "New $50 Today."

On the opposite sidewalk with the marquee in the background sat then U.S. Treasurer Mary Ellen Withrow whose name appeared on the bill. We invited passers-by to exchange $50 for the newly designed $50 -- freshly signed by Ms. Withrow. The line snaked down the sidewalk.

Separately, a colleague from our Washington DC office insisted that we stage a separate photo op wherein Ms. Withrow use the new $50 to purchase tickets to the Radio City Christmas Spectacular. (For whom, I don't know?) With compliant news photographers put in their places, my colleague, an old political campaign PR operative, stage-directed Ms. Withrow to the box office to make the purchase. I stood there mortified by the blatant way in which he manipulated these photojournalists. He insisted that this is how it's done in the Beltway.

Politico reported yesterday how some misguided Obama handlers asked two Muslim woman (with head scarves) to change their seats from behind the podium where the Senator was poised to give a speech. The New York Times picked up on it today, under the headline "Obama’s Campaign Tightens Control of Image and Access:"

While the strategy has won compliments from political professionals of both parties, who say Mr. Obama’s campaign is exhibiting a high level of discipline, it has also created some early turbulence for a candidate who has run on promises of openness and cultivated a grass-roots following and a cottage industry of homemade campaign videos, memorabilia and street murals.

The campaign apologized for the obvious gaff and promised to not let it happen again. Oh really?

So what is and what is not acceptable in the management of a candidate's public persona? My feeling is to let Obama be Obama. Lay the groundwork, but then step back to allow for a certain amount of spontaneous combustion. Prep certainly and choose public appearances that fortify positions, but to do NOT phony it up.

Throigh this painful lesson, there remains one silver lining: the Bushies lowered the bar so low that any semblance of transparency will be seen as a breath of fresh air. Now, I wonder when will the media start scrutinizing Senator McCain's PR ways and means?

Labels: politics, PR, presidential campaign, public relations, Senator McCain. politico.com, Senator Obama. photo-op

The Washington Post's main media man Howard Kurtz today profiles Senator Obama's newly anointed press secretary Linda Douglass, a former broadcast TV political reporter.

In the course of the interview, Ms. Douglass makes an observation about jumping to "the dark side":

"The thing that really made me feel at peace with the decision is this conversation we had about telling the truth," she says. "He wants me to tell the truth. Coming from a background in journalism as opposed to PR, that was really the thing I wanted to hear."

I guess, Linda, you believe that PR people, as opposed to journalists, are untruthful? I'm not convinced, but then again, those that have handled these chores for the current administration didn't do much to bolster the profession's credibility.

Interesting thing about today's Kurtz piece: its original title changed in the course of the morning from "As Obama Aide, Reporter Dons Flack Jacket" to "The Reporter Who Speaks for Obama." What happened? Could this blog's namesake rubbed some Post editor's nose the wrong way?

Anyway, to her credit, Ms. Douglass had the good sense to consult one of the best in the biz, Mike McCurry, before taking the job. Mike had this to say:

"She wants to do it in a different way from the spinners of the past," he says. "She wants to get away from the rat-a-tat-tat back-and-forth and keep focused on what journalists need to get the job done."

Mike, please don't tell me that you used the word "spinner" to describe a PR person. Oh well, I guess this is less of a pejorative in Beltway PR, as GOP strategist Dan Schnur, a spokesman for McCain's 2000 campaign, affirms:

"The more us communication types are trained in spin, the more different we become from the reporters who are covering our candidates. "

Apart from your Bush-bred grammar, Mr. Schnur, what does "trained in spin" entail? Do those who advocate have to spin in order to prevail in the court of public opinion? Wouldn't greater transparency, a strong grasp of the facts, and a reasonable command of the English language suffice?

Senator Obama's newly invigorated communications consigliere David Axelrod astutely sums up Ms. Douglass's value to the campaign:

"She's very fluent in national issues," he says. "Obviously she understands network television from the inside out."

Hopefully her fluency with the issues and her ability to honestly connect with the media gaggle will differentiate her from her patently dishonest predecessors and current rivals, something I'm not sure that other TV journo-turned-PR guy Tony Snow truly achieved.

Maybe Ms. Douglass will even succeed in spinning the verb "spin" out of the PR vernacular? Here's what she told TV Newser recently:

"My intention is that I won't spin," she says. "I absolutely vow that I will tell the truth."

But she also laid out the challenge:

"I also understand that one has to present the campaign in a certain way at certain times. I know that will be a challenge. It's new to me. I've got to learn, and on the fly."

Labels: Barack Obama, David Axelrod, Linda Douglass, Mike McCurry, PR, press secretary, public relations, spin, Tony Snow

One bought into the pitch. The other didn't. I'm talking about your two favorite mainstream gadget gurus who today both reviewed Samsung's iPhone wannabe, the Instinct.

Curious to see both Mossberg and Pogue, let alone The AP, all time their reviews for today when the product doesn't bow at retail until June 20.

This is three weeks ahead of the debut of Apple's much-ballyhooed 3G iPhone on whose coattails the folks at Samsung's agency (Edelman?) seem to have successfully ridden. Good strategy. If you'e going to intro a touch-screen phone, might as well do so to coincide with news from the genre's undisputed leader.

Today's dueling reviews also demonstrates that those who've proclaimed the days of the PR embargo are dead...are dead wrong. Is it simple coincidence that the prime suspects jumped onto the Instinct media bandwagon on the same day? Here's a smattering of other coverage:

• Gigaom
• CNET
• The Street
  
• Engadget
  
• Gizmodo

Notice that both Engadget and Gizmodo reviewed the Instinct June 8. I guess nowadays bloggers get first dibs. As for the others, I wonder if Samsung put a review clamp on the bloggers for June 8 and mainstream June 11? Maybe there is no conspiracy. It just worked out this way. Also, who's keeping tabs on those that swallowed the story pitch (a better iPhone?) and those who didn't.

Labels: 3G, Apple iPhone, David Pogue, embargo, Instinct, media, Mossberg, PR, public relations, Samsung, touch-screen

To "light up the social graph" was how the speaker described her efforts to take her company to the next level, i.e., "igniting" some "250 million email relationships," "tens of millions in groups," a myriad Flickr users, etc.

The company is Yahoo!, the speaker, its president Susan Decker addressing the Advertising 2.0 Conference last week in NY.

Few exited the room without a positive impression of Ms. Decker. The Street also seemed to like what it heard. I think YHOO jumped 3.7% by the time the closing bell chimed that day. Me, I was delighted to hear that she and I lit up the same university, though not at the same time.

Back to igniting the social graph... This was the first time I heard that expression. In fact, it's not easy keeping up with the vernacular digitas. Here are some ways to stay current:

• Follow some gadget geeks on Twitter or FriendFeed.
  
• Add the tech-driven musings of others to your Google reader.
  
• Attend a few of the conferences that have exploded with this digital revolution.
  
• Tool around with the tools, or as Mike Moran would advise, "Do It Wrong Quickly."
• Or, God forbid, patronize Amazon.com or BN.com for any number of books that will help ease one's fear of disintermediation. (Kindle's acceptable too.)

For that last bullet, I've always opted for non-fiction, and specifically books related to the industry in which I toil. For a long time, it was any book about the mainstream media including Gouldon's Fit to Print," Auletta's Three Blind Mice, Boyer's Who Killed CBS, Kurtz's The Fortune Tellers or Spin Cycle, Jones's The Trust, Alterman's What Liberal Media, and too many others. (Pedestrian media-related titles from Neuharth, Fairchild, Cindy Adams, Linda Ellerbee...also line my shelves.)

But somewhere along the road, I came across George Gilder's prescient long-form article Telecosm. A few years later, I stumbled upon Negroponte's newly published Being Digital after which my literary-driven, professional development took a different turn.

It included Gladwell's The Tipping Point, Gillmor's We the Media, Scoble and Israel's Naked Conversations, Battelle's The Search, Moran's Do It Wrong Quickly, Libert's We Are Smarter Than Me, Tapscott's Wikinomics, Heath and Heath's Made to Stick, McConnell and Huba's Citizen Marketers. On deck are Bhargava's Personality Not Included, Bernoff and Li's Groundswell, and Breakenridge's PR 2.0, a book that Brian Solis, whom I met over the weekend, strongly recommends. Solis also is offering a free "essential guide to social media" e-book.

For those in positions to hire or promote PR professionals, you might just gauge their worthiness by the parameters listed above...and their personal reading lists. One's curiosity speaks volumes about his or her prospects for success in this markedly changed PR business.

P.S. J.D. Lasica also decided to share his reading list here.

Labels: Advertising 2.0, digital, PR, professional development, public relations, reading list, Susan Decker, Yahoo

The GMC crowd saw an opening and carpe diem! After years of public abuse and regulatory setbacks, some smart (PR-minded) person at "agricultural biotechnology" giant Monsanto had the foresight to lever the worldwide food shortage to make a cogent case for its major staple -- genetically modified seeds.

(Hey, I kind of like the term "agricultural biotechnology. It reminds me of when the Chemical Manufacturers Association changed its name to the American Chemistry Council, i.e, a harken back to my junior year in high school. Anyway, it sure beats genetic engineering.)

As Thursday's New York Times reports:

"Perhaps seeking to avoid controversy, Monsanto’s announcement did not mention the term 'genetic engineering.' It referred instead to 'other technologies' beyond breeding."

Be that as it may, the point of this post is to recognize Monsanto for astutely pouncing on the tragic world events that have landed on the seed company's doorstep. Moreover, Monsanto pegged its salvo to a high-profile gathering of world leaders addressing the very issue for which the company's science and products aim to resolve.

"The announcement, coming as world leaders are meeting in Rome to discuss rising food prices and growing food shortages, appears to be aimed at least in part at winning acceptance of genetically modified crops by showing that they can play a major role in feeding the world."

So here's the question: will the worldwide food crisis finally supplant the superstition over genetically modified crops and pave the way for Monsanto to "...double the yields of corn, soybeans and cotton by 2030 and...require 30 percent less water, land and energy to grow?"

And what happens to the great White (House) hoax called bio-fuels? Important questions.

Labels: bio-fuels, ethanol, genetic engineering, genetically modified crops, gmc, Monsanto, PR, U.N., World Food Summit

I'm sure the folks at "Access Hollywood" were crowing when their arch rival "Entertainment Tonight" appeared to have prematurely delivered Brangelina's twins on Friday.

The AP, on the other hand, was less buoyant after learning that the ET-sourced story it moved may be dubious. It's not nice to misinform the world's largest news organization. Or was it?

During its broadcast on Friday night, “Entertainment Tonight” said that “a source who says she was inside the delivery room tells us yes, the babies were born and yes, mother and babies are doing fine.” The newsmagazine also quoted another Web site in giving the babies’ alleged names.

Now, I could care less whether ET got it right or wrong when it reported the celebrity birth on its website Friday morning. After all, some celebs have been known to intentionally deceive the gaggle of media gossipists on whose coattails their fame rides.

My beef lies with the fact that ET went AWOL when it came time to cough up a mea culpa or a line of communication once its scoop of the year seemed to lose its legs. There's still not a mention of this befuddling boffo story on the home page of the show's website. Aarrgh.

A representative from the show, who refused to speak on the record, said Monday that the story not been retracted. The representative would not comment on whether the show had checked back with the original source after Pitt’s manager denied the births. The show’s veteran executive producer, Linda Bell Blue, did not return a call seeking comment on Monday.

It's hard to know the facts as an outsider looking in, but you'd think by now, the strong denials from Brad and Angelina's agents, publicists and managers would warrant a re-thinking of the silent treatment.

The executive producer for "Entertainment Tonight" said Monday that she wanted to "see how this story plays out" before retracting a report that the twins had been born, despite a denial from Pitt's manager and a claim that someone might be posing as Jolie's personal assistant to fool reporters.

AP managing editor Lou Ferrara, who oversees the wire service's entertainment coverage, took a page from the PR handbook with this observation:

“If you have the story, stand up and shout it from the mountaintops,” he said. “If you’ve got it wrong, you’ve got to shout it from the mountaintops that you’ve got it wrong.”

You got that right, Lou. But then again, maybe Angelina did give birth and the two cooked up the ruse...for the paltry sum of $15 million? Stay tuned.

Labels: Access Hollywood, Angelina Jolie, birth, Brad Pitt, Entertainment Tonoght, PR, public relations, The Associated Press, twins

Yes, I know it's out of vogue to admit being a member of gen boomer. But considering that The Police and Genesis were the two top grossing performers in 2007, and Clapton, The Eagles, The Stones, and the Moody Blues all drew SRO crowds, who's to say what's in or out of vogue? But I digress.

I remember when USA Today made its debut. The same goes for CNN whose first (of three) New York bureaus sat on the ground floor of the World Trade Center. And then there were People magazine (US Mag arrived later) and "Entertainment Tonight," which I first heard about from my buddy David Friendly after his brother Andy floated an idea for a fast-paced entertainment news show for national syndication.

All thrive today as big-branded MSM. In fact USA Today remains the nation's biggest circulation daily (all those free hotel copies?) at a time when newspapers face do-or-die pressure to reinvent themselves. At its birth, however, journalism's elite castigated the color broadsheet for its "shallow" approach to news reporting, and dubbed it "McPaper."

The paper's founder, former Gannett chairman Al Neuharth, to this day, defends the newspaper industry (and his paper's distinctly digestible diet of news nuggets). Today Ad Age asks whether USA Today can still prove its relevancy.

So which journalistic enterprises are poised to prosper in today's changed media landscape characterized by stark, new media consumption habits, (eg., time-shifting, online), a 24/7 news cycle, and, frankly, fickle consumers with short attention spans. All combine to make the "news nugget" approach much more in vogue.

Take Twitter. Two recent national and one micro-focused "news" feeds recently caught my eye. The first entailed NASA setting up a Twitter feed to follow the Mars landing. Then we had tweets emanating from China capturing the first rumblings of a massive earthquake. And finally, I noticed that the organizers of the College Sailing nationals championships tooled with a Twitter feed to follow this weekend's action on the regatta course in Newport. (My #2 son was competing.)

Will Twitter take the USA Today model to its rightful conclusion...and toward profitability? And what does the explosion of 140-character missives say about the current state of journalism, or perhaps, the consumers thereof? Instantly gratifying for sure, but shallow just the same. Back to the future.

Labels: advertising, Al Neuharth, Andy Friendly, CNN, Entertainment Tonight, journalism, mainstream media, newspapers, tweets, Twtter, USA Today