Friday shocker:
Monday fallout:
President’s denials. Bipartisan investigations loom.
With this story unfolding hourly, some context would seem in order:
As the U.S. plunges ahead toward the 2020 national election it is arguably even more divided than at other critical times in the nation’s history of choosing presidents. Future historians no doubt will assess whether today’s national deep divisions and distress are comparable to, or if they exceed, those of choosing presidents in extremely troubling times in U.S. history — the advent to the Civil War; Depression; and the Vietnam War .
In 2020, the nation faces political/social/economic challenges of comparable dimensions while confronting an economy-scorching and soul-searing global pandemic — all of this monitored by millions of cell phone video cameras feeding a never-ending “news cycle.”
New York Times columnist summed this up as,
“America Is Facing 5 Epic Crises All at Once” (subhead in print edition: “This is our lives’ most important moment”). The five crises: “we are losing the fight against Covid-19…we’re giving up;… undergoing a rapid education on the burdens African-Americans carry every day;…we’re in the middle of a political realignment; … a quasi-religion is seeking control of America’s cultural institutions; … we could be on the verge of a prolonged economic depression.”
All of this when reported COVID-19 cases in the U.S are re-surging even beyond earlier peaks; some 40 million Americans are jobless; and broadly-based racial/social justice protests continue across the country heading into a second month.
The “way home” from this unprecedented toxic confluence is uncharted. But it will undoubtedly require national unity and resolve on a heroic scale.
Seems like heresy when two national journalists take a deep dive into soul-searching the integrity of their profession.
But hold on. There’s much to unpack and parse here.
“I have never believed much in the notion of journalistic “objectivity”. We all bring our individual sensitivities to bear on what we write. Great journalism involves the head and the heart, the lucidity to think and the passion to feel, the two in balance.”
And Bret Stephens (on the same page just three columns over).
“What the Times Got Wrong ”
“Last week’s decision by this newspaper to disavow an Op-Ed by Senator Tom Cotton is a gift to the enemies of a free press – free in the sense of one that doesn’t quiver and cave in the face of an outrage mob.”
They were referring, of course, to (1.) “objectivity” as a foundational standard of the journalism profession; (2) the flare up in the Times newsroom over Senator Cotton’s Op-ed). Issues: As an editor, reporter or commentator can you truly extinguish the life-long emotional and intellectual experiences stored in the recesses of your brain? Do you really want to?
Here’s an experiment to begin to address this: Place the front page of any two daily newspapers before you and consider how the content varies on the choice of stories, headlines, ledes, story lines, display and length.
Which, ultimately, is a good thing in a democratic society: freedom of speech, freedom of the “press”, marketplace of ideas, etc. As long as there is an earnest effort to achieve objectivity in news reporting and yes, even in commentaries on the editorial/op-ed pages as well.
Avoid false equivalencies. Rely on facts and truth as much as they can be verified.
“I don’t doubt the Times editors good faith in seeking to expose readers to points of view they might not otherwise encounter. But more than three years into the Trump presidency, given the threats we face, it is long past time for editors to stop playing both sides with fascism and democracy.”
Cohen and Stephens have done us a service by threading the needle on journalistic”propriety. Surely, not everything should appear in mainstream media. The long-standing question, of course, is where do you draw the line?
Perhaps style, word selection and track record are important as context. Cotton’s recent tweets on the George Floyd protesters included this: “And, if necessary, the 10th Mountain, 82nd Airborne, Ist Cav, 3rd Infantry – whatever it takes to restore order. No quarter [emphasis added] for insurrectionists, anarchists, rioters and looters.”
Stephens is open to Op-eds such as Senator Cotton’s – although he has a personal/professional limit for such free speech/free press: “We have an obligation to keep undeniably hateful ideas, like Holocaust denial or racism, out of editorial pages. But serious journalism, complete with vigorous exchange of ideas, cannot survive in an atmosphere in which modest intellectual risk-taking or minor offenses against new ideological orthodoxies risk professional ruin.”
I feel more comfortable with Cohen’s conclusion:
“I also recognize another truth: that the Floyd killing illustrated that racism in the United States is systemic, and white-dominated American newsrooms are ill-equipped to deal with this reality because only more diversity can capture multiple perspectives.”
(Just posted: Response to a kind invitation by the Global Alliance For Public Relations and Communication Management to produce a webinar on “Global Public Relations in the Evolving Society”. Condensed, edited from video script https://vimeo.com/417376980
I will stipulate – and try to support – three fundamental assertions:
-
Global society is irrevocably interconnected – with great progress over many decades, but with inherent weaknesses that represent potential peril.
-
Whatever global transformative “new-normals” evolve, reliable information from informed sources is the plasma for social progress.
-
Therefore, the public relations profession’s principles and ethical codes will, over time, contribute to renewed global cooperation and societal progress.
Of course, you may well be thinking, quite justifiably:
“Hold on. We are in the midst of a historic global pandemic with existential impact on public health and the global economy. This could surely have a great negative effect on globalization in the foreseeable future.”
Unquestionably – and tragically – true.
In this webinar we will not, by any means, overlook the COVID-19 impact on the evolution of global society. But let’s try, briefly, to peer through this terrible cloud overhanging global society and examine it in a somewhat broader context – hopefully, in a way that is helpful.
It would be foolhardy to prophesize with any degree of certainty. There are too many “unknowns” and “unknowables”. And it is too true that the Corona virus pandemic wave of uncertainty has generated many global, national and local issues that will endure well into this century.
However:
I believe this: It is now arguable that the evolving society – even with these and many other uncertainties — makes the sharing of reliable information – truth – and practice of public relations needed more than ever. Because harmony or, at least, earnest efforts to achieve it, is ultimately at the heart of the public relations social purpose.
Despite formidable socio-political obstacles, the globalized, sustainable interconnected society will eventually advance once again. It will advance because it must as we face a range of macro challenges that can only be addressed with international connectivity and cooperation.
Among them:
Science – especially medical science – without borders.
Trade and commerce via the many supply chains that now girdle the globe in accord with the Ricardo Theory of Comparative Advantage.
Climate change; arms control; conflict resolution; the refugee immigration tragedy; artificial intelligence and convergent technologies; “digital surveillance capitalism”;
And, of course, pandemics.
A brief list of the many multilateral organizations and institutions that have long contributed – and are still contributing — to global inter-connectedness: The United Nations, World Health Organization, World Trade Organization, World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the many thousands of multinational companies, philanthropies, non-governmental-organizations and academic institutions.
And the role of global public relations in these turbulent times?
Two of many current examples:
In late March, The Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management posted this:
Twelve Messages for COVID-19 Responsible Communication
… “the board members agree on twelve messages that should guide communication about the pandemic. The aim of this initiative is to remind governments, companies, organizations and individuals that the way we manage communication is key to shape public sentiment, to help overcome that global crisis, and, at the same time, to be ready for the future.” The list is available on the GA site in five languages.
About the same time, one of the GA member societies, The Public Relations Society of America, posted this:
How Communicators Can Help Inform the Public During COVID-19 Crisis
“PRSA and the PRSA Health Academy have created an infographic aimed at simplifying the information-gathering process and directing people to reliable, credible resources.
“Our expertise can help drown out the din and assist communities in deciphering facts from fiction. The role of public relations professionals as advocates for truth, accuracy and transparency in accordance with the PCode of Ethics is integral to our daily practice but especially crucial in times of crisis.
“This is a global emergency where the expertise of public relations professionals can have a positive impact…”
Perspective for the long term.
The global race for a COVID19 vaccine is on.
There is the hope – even the prayer – for its success:
“strong international coordination and co-operation among vaccine developers, regulators, policy makers, funders, public health bodies and governments will be needed to ensure safe and effective vaccine can be manufactured in sufficient quantities and made globally accessible.” [Emphasis added]
– The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, April 2020.
CEPR is a premier global partnership coordinating such organizations to accelerate the development of vaccines against emerging infectious diseases and enable equitable access to these vaccines for people during outbreaks.
Added perspective and an admonition from Simon Everett, MBA Director and Coordinator of the Global Trade Alert monitoring protectionism at University of St. Galen, on current tariff reductions on existing medical products: “As 77 nations have cut tariffs on medical products why can’t some enterprising trade minister or 2 assemble a large coalition backing supply chains in medical goods? (Twitter trail):
“Now, just as the world requires collaboration to defeat the coronavirus … national interests are winning out … This is a battle for supremacy over products that may determine who lives and who dies.”
Sadly, disturbingly – tragically – the life-or-death international search for a COVID19 vaccine has become enmeshed in a perversion of global trade objectives and outcomes.
” … in many countries – especially the United States – a stark failure by governments to equitably distribute the bounty has undermined faith in trade, giving way to a protectionist mentality in which goods and resources are viewed as zero-sum …
“‘The export bans are not helpful,’ said Mariangela Simao, assistant director general for medicines and health products at the World Health Organization in Geneva. ‘It can disrupt supply chains of some products that are actually needed everywhere.’ “
With some 50 potential vaccines reportedly now in development around the world, there is hope for an effective version, perhaps late this year or in early 2021. Whether it will be shared equitably isn’t certain.
Much of this turmoil is the result of the long running, roller-coaster disputes between China and the United States. But other countries are also involved in this terrible existential scrum. The Times article summary:
“‘I’m worried about every country that has the potential to manufacture the vaccine.’ said Dr. Richard Hatchett, the chief executive of the [CEPI] vaccine consortium. ‘They all have the ability to impose export controls. They all have the ability to nationalize their vaccine industry.
“If that is what happens, the dangers proliferate.”
“… Litany of the threats facing journalism …”
“The years since then [2000] have seen the economic devastation of the profession, which has been about as dramatic as any sector of the labor market …”
That’s the grim assessment and conclusion of Nicholas Lemann, Professor and Emeritus Dean at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, in “Can Journalism Be Saved?” in the February 27th issue of The New York Review of Books.
Of course, he’s not alone in bringing us this distressing analysis. And with good reason. Since 2004, some 1,800 US newspapers have closed. Paid circulation and ad revenue have dropped precipitously since 2016.
Sadly, The New York Times reports that the McClatchy news is instructive “McClatchy a Major US Newspaper Chain Files for Bankruptcy” : “If the Chapter 11 plan gains court approval, McClatchy would become the latest newspaper company to fall under the control of Wall Street investors, an unlikely relationship that has become more common as the financial industry seeks to profit from an ailing business.”
Why should we care? The “news business” in America, and around the world, has evolved for centuries. Think about the newspaper origin in early America as sponsored political pamphlets and, over more recent decades, the introduction of competitive news vehicles such as radio, television (network and cable) and most recently, social media.
But this is different by a high order of magnitude. Now news professionals, classic journalism and especially print journalism must withstand a combined onslaught of economics, technology — and yes, national politics. The “creative destruction” of Wall Street takeovers in itself may well be destiny, but other current macro forces are also contributing factors.
Perhaps most dangerous: The very nature of social media news platforms – a new species of corporate power too often with negative influence and outcomes. Most imminent and dangerous to democracy is how social media platforms can be vehicles for intentionally misleading information to undermine truth and overwhelm the public people — and democracy – with misinformation https://bit.ly/2wkngm9 .
In his recent book, “Zucked – Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe”
Roger McNamee presents a highly likely description of how Russia impacted the 2016 U.S. elections mainly via social media reaching targeted potential voters. (He also gives this broad interpretation of how social media has gone astray in exploiting data and facilitating disruption: “Instead of technology being a tool of humanity, it is humans who are in service to technology.”)
Finally, and most distressing, there are the growing threats – even physical – to journalists by autocrats in various countries. In 2019 alone, 25 journalists were killed and at least 250 imprisoned according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, as detailed in: “Applying Experience to Purpose”
Lemann’s reluctant conclusion:
“Journalism is a case in which it’s going to take a whole new set of arrangements, and a new way of thinking, to solve the present crisis.”
“This is surely the time for nothing but the truth in journalism, and, of course, throughout society.”
Excerpts from the just-published analysis on protecting journalists, Free Press and democracy, “Applying Experience to Purpose”, STRIVE online magazine, January – March, 2020.
________
“Actions and abuses against a free press observed across the globe are gravely concerning, and the numbers are even more sobering: In 2019 alone, 25 journalists were killed and at least 250 imprisoned. During the period ending August 31, 2019, 318 journalists were murdered for their work worldwide, and in 86% of those cases no perpetrators have been successfully prosecuted, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists Impunity Index 2008-2019, Getting Away With Murder…
“Chances are that in the time you read this piece, somewhere on this good earth a journalist will be threatened, censored, assaulted, unjustly arrested, jailed, kidnapped, or God forbid, murdered. The free press and liberal democracy will have received yet another grievous wound.
As an octogenarian , I view the mission of protecting journalists and journalism itself against such attacks as the “gold” of public service in my golden years …
“So what is to be done?
Engage. Energize.
To amplify: Apply the talents, experience and connections you’ve accumulated throughout your career years, perhaps
many years, in service to the cause of your choice. Spread the word, encouraging enduring commitments. I did that with two of the organizations leading the defense of journalists and the Free Press: the Committee to Protect Journalists
https://cpj.org/ and the Society of Professional Journalists
________________________
I urge you to undertake similar action.
Imagine this scene: Leading business school* class, Business Ethics 401 –
PROFESSOR:
As we begin the semester, because of the topic’s complexity and importance, I will give you until April 30th to submit your term paper – worth 25% of your final grade – on this topic:
“Are the 2020 alarm bells on Big Tech generating momentum sufficient to offset the companies’ putative ‘too big to fail’ powers?”
Context: Consider the vast powers and influence on society now held by companies such as Facebook, Google and Twitter. Sweeping technological advances often bring social and political challenges along with many benefits. But the twenty-first century digitally-based communications technology is generating the unprecedented: A new species of powerful companies with vast influence on society itself. What are the ethical and social responsibilities if these companies? How will they be met?
In addition to the sources you should develop, you may also consider:
New York Times articles –
Also, for historical background and current relevance:
STUDENT:
OK. But what about the social responsibilities of the governments that regulate these companies?.
PROFESSOR:
Please read the syllabus. That’s the topic of our class next week.
* Perhaps a participant in the global Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRIME) organization
What are we to make of this NEWSDAY report yesterday? –
“WASHINGTON — Less than a month into Michael Bloomberg’s self-funded presidential campaign, the billionaire’s campaign ads have blanketed the internet — appearing at the top of Instagram feeds, front and center on Facebook timelines, featured in Google search results and often played in the middle of YouTube videos.
“The ubiquity of Bloomberg’s online advertisements reflects record spending by the mogul that so far has topped $100 million in TV and internet advertising since he entered the race on Nov. 24 — including $7.5 million for Google and YouTube ads and $2.5 million in Facebook ads, according to data posted by the companies on Tuesday”. Bloomberg launches $100M TV/Internet ad campaign
Here’s the problem: Truth.
New York Times columnist Roger Cohen quoting British actor Sacha Baron Cohen the British actor on social media behemoths: “‘The truth is that these companies won’t fundamentally change because their entire business model relies on generating more engagement, and nothing generates more engagement than lies, fear and outrage.”
Columnist Cohen’s tongue-in-cheek sardonic comment: “Truth is so 20th century.”
And this from an earlier Times article: “Facebook is incapable of vetting political ads effectively and consistently at the global scale. And political ads are essential to maintaining the company’s presence in countries [and revenues] around the world.” “The Real Reason Facebook Won’t Fact Check Political Ads”
On the other hand, Twitter no longer posts political ads.
Another problem: Ubiquity.
From the NEWSDAY article: A longtime social media consultant: “In the social and digital world today, it’s almost impossible to oversaturate the market.”
Is it just quaint, then, that in the last few days, a dozen, and growing number, of main stream media have endorsed the House of Representatives impeachment endeavor? (Recall that virtually all major dailies across America endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016.)
Also, is it marginal that in defense of truth in journalism, the Society of Professional Journalists this year decided to mount a summit meeting titled, “Quo Vadis Democracy in an age of Disinformation?”
We have to hope fervently that classic journalism standards will prevail in reporting and analysis of politics.
Democracy depends on it.
Consider the local hardware store.
More specifically, consider Chelsea Convenience Hardware, on Ninth Avenue in Manhattan.
But give it your earliest attention because it’s closing tomorrow, going out of business.
Is Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia University being hyperbolic when he writes in
The New York Times that Chelsea Convenience and its longtime owner, Naum Feygin, represent a microcosm of what’s wrong with capitalism
The Life and Death of the Local Hardware Store ? :
“So Chelsea Convenience is scheduled to shut down on Nov. 30, not because of a recession or poor business decisions, but because of what amounts to a fundamental change in American capitalism … The fate of Chelsea Convenience shows, in a small way, that business and capitalism can be at odds – that the drive for immense capital gains can drain the life out of human-scale business…”
Mr. Feygin represents the epitome of the American immigrant-cum-hard-work-success-story. In his case, however, his story does not have a happy ending. Having arrived from Russia in 1991, he took entry-level jobs for years until, with accumulated savings, he and his wife bought Chelsea Convenience in 1997 and has run it successfully ever since. Now, with a near doubling in rent, the Feygins’ story as entrepreneurs ends abruptly.
Of course, it’s not a new story. Small (and not so small) retailers across the country have been put out of business with the growing success of internet e-commerce via behemoths such as Amazon and E-Commerce – as well as a host of macro economic forces now in confluence. Professor Wu’s analysis:
“Competition from Amazon and a rent increase might like seem like distinct phenomena, but they are two sides of the same coin. Both reflect the transformative consolidation and centralization of the American economy since the 1990s … Amazon represents the increasing monopolization of retail; the high rents are a symptom of the enormous concentration of wealth in a handful of coastal cities…”
You know: a derivative of “creative destruction.”
But maybe as capitalism continues to evolve — now under new dimensions of duress — it can develop a little more of the “creative”, a little less “destruction.”
Professor Wu’s windup:
“As for Mr. Feygin himself, he isn’t sure what he will do next. ‘It is hard’, he says, ‘very hard’. He had hoped that his son, Willem, would want to take over the store. But Willem is ‘not so stupid’, Mr. Feygin says. ‘He works for a hedge fund.'”
Based largely on a just-released study by PEN America – a distinguished advocacy group for writers and free expression – Here’s how The Times article framed the newspaper peril as a national crisis: “Since 2004, more than 1,800 local print outlets have shuttered in the United States, and at least 200 counties have no newspaper at all.”
is quite telling:
“Local newspapers, TV stations, and radio stations are being bought and consolidated by hedge funds and media conglomerates and often subjected to relentless cost cutting — leading to coverage that is more national, less diverse, and, in some cases, more politically polarized. Newspapers have been hit the hardest, losing $35 billion in ad revenue and 47 percent of newsroom staff in the past 15 years…”
“A vibrant, responsive democracy requires enlightened citizens, and without forceful local reporting, they are kept in the dark… At a time when political polarization is increasing and fraudulent news is spreading, a shared fact-based discourse on the issues that most directly affect Americans is more essential and more elusive than ever. Without reliable information on how tax dollars are spent, how federal policy affects local communities… how can citizens make informed choices about who should govern?”
Acknowledging the powerful socio-economic forces at work in contemporary journalism, “Losing the News …” nevertheless presents potentially ameliorating conclusions such as: “Philanthropic
funding must expand dramatically to make a dent at the local level”; and “Legislators and regulators must ensure that technology companies fairly compensate local outlets for the journalism they produce…”
PEN included this among its key conclusions:
“The Federal Communications Commission must roll back recent decisions that enable media consolidations and cost cutting .
If you have any doubt that local news reporting is important, consider two very different reports this week:
“Probe Ordered Into Bias on Long Island” – this the result of a three-year Pulitzer-worthy investigative report by NEWSDAY on the decades-long widespread unequal treatment by real estate agents on Long Island.
But at the other extreme, this from The Times article:
“In Denver, a diminished local news presence, … a former journalist, turned City Council member, lamented the large number of people who seemed to be unaware of local elections, and the relative handful of reporters covering a quickly growing city. ‘It feels like we could all be getting way with murder right now…'”
A final word from PEN chief executive Suzanne Nossel: “That first draft of history is not being written – it has completely disappeared. That’s what is so chilling about this crisis.”
