Score another point for today's communication technology: The Boston Herald has a story about how a woman whose computer was stolen managed to use another computer to locate the stolen machine - and then use the multimedia capabilities of the stolen computer to finger (or maybe eyeball) the suspects.
Hat tip: Jules Crittenden
I've posted before about the attempts to force websites to get permission from site visitors before tracking and recording their actions, so that advertisers can target advertising that might or might not be of interest to them. I think the attempts are a bad idea, particularly the idea of legislating such requirements on a state-by-state basis.
George Simpson apparently agrees, and, on the Online Media Daily blog, he has a very funny post suggesting that we not stop with the Internet. If we're going to have these privacy concerns, let's add on other marketers. He has some modest proposals for form letters for use by magazines, mail-order catalogues, telemarketers, government agencies, etc. They're funny and, I think, quite to the point. Take a look.
The New York Times needs a little remedial help in understanding the relationship between public relations and journalism. At least, that's the impression I take away from its 7600-word article about sinister government efforts to influence news coverage about the war in Iraq. Why, would you believe it, the Times has discovered that the Pentagon actually seeks out favorable coverage from military analysts! Shocking!
Or maybe not. I've read a lot of hyperventilating stories about this in the past few days on both sides of the issue. I think the best response, from the PR side, comes in the Bulldog Reporter's Daily Dog from Ronn Torossian, the President and CEO of 5W Public Relations:
For me, it's a given that all organizations (including the U.S. military) attempt to "spin" what the public sees and educate and influence spokespeople who appear in the media. It's not deception any more than the political candidates who are trained to respond in a certain way, nonprofit organizations that routinely use one set of statistics instead of another or CEOs who are media trained on a daily basis by their PR firms.
Right. Read the whole thing. I'm afraid I have to agree with John Podhoretz writing for Commentary Magazine:
I think, based on many years of experience working at various newspapers, that there is an explanation for the extreme length — 7800 words — of the story and the fact that it manages to find nothing more than an effort by the Pentagon to get good coverage. The Times thought it was on to something very big, ended up with something very small, and then took what little they had and tried to make a silk purse from the sow’s ear that was reporter David Barstow’s investigation.
Public Relations is an exercise in presenting the best possible face to the world. Favoring those who help you is part of the game. If the New York Times weren't wearing its ideological blinders, they would acknowledge it.
If this article in Wired had appeared on April 1, rather than April 3, I'd dismiss it out of hand as an April Fool's joke. But it appears to be serious: Apple Computer is suing New York City over the city's new logo for its GreeNYC campaign. Apparently, Apple fears that New York City might be confused for an Apple iPod, although the former is significantly larger and much harder to connect to an earpiece. Or something like that, anyway.
I mean, take a look at the logo (at the link). Yeah, it uses an apple. Doesn't look much to me like the Apple Computer logo, but apparently the apple-ness of it is enough to have Apple's lawyers in a swivet. Now corporate lawyers are generally well-paid to go into swivets over things that most of us would consider nonsense, and I'm sure Apple's lawyers have what, to them, seem like very good reasons. But they'll have to forgive the rest of us for snickering behind our hands. Although, to be safe, I'm going downstairs and dump the apples out of my refrigerator. I don't want a lawsuit for eating those corporate logos. Not worth it.
Hat tip: MediaPost
I like bicycles.
Accordingly, I think bike lanes are good ideas.
But Slate's Andy Bowers has discovered what must be the stupidest bike lane in America.
See for yourself...
Hat tip: Instapundit
That's 'topless' as in 'laptopless.' An article in the Los Angeles Times - yesterday, so it's probably no joke - notes the growing tendency in some offices and schools to ban laptops and other communications devices, particularly Blackberries, from face-to-face meetings or class sessions.
What makes this surprising is it's not a luddite reaction to technology - the story is about how prevalent this phenomenon has become in Silicon Valley, still regarded as the heart of high tech. Too many companies and college professors were finding that meeting/class attendees were paying more attention to their external communications than to the people in the room with them. This was not only rude, it tends to make the meetings unproductive.
Personally, I'm a little mixed. I've never used my laptop for external communication (email, surfing, social networking) while in meetings - but I do rely on it for note-taking. Like a great many other people, my handwriting is sufficiently bad that I have a hard time reading my notes, much less keeping up with note-taking by hand. The laptop has rescued me many times over, and I rely on it. So, while I can see the motivation behind the trend, I would have a hard time leaving my laptop home. But then, I'm a touch-typist, and have no problem looking at you and carrying on a conversation with you while my fingers do the note-taking...
Hat tip: IAB SmartBrief
At Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds links to a disturbing story that says Amazon.com is moving to force writers using Publish On Demand technology to use Amazon's preferred vendor - or else they won't get distribution through Amazon. An in depth report and some very good analysis from Sgt. Mom at the Daily Brief. Also a version from the Wall Street Journal here.And, if this worries you (as it worries me), there's an online petition you could sign urging Amazon to rethink its position. I'm a huge fan, and steady customer, of Amazon, but I don't like the sound of this.
Jules Crittenden catches some fictionalists - they are NOT journalists - with their pants down. An outfit with whom I was happily unfamiliar, called IPS, or Inter Press Service News - ran an article about how Iraqi doctors are naming a form of malaria "Blackwater," after the "mercenary company" which, the alleged journalists say, is "the lethal U.S.-based company which has been responsible for the death of countless Iraqis." (No, I won't link to their story. If you like this kind of fiction, you can find it.)
Only trouble is, this form of malaria has been called "blackwater fever" since the mid-19th century. It has to do with the urine turning black, a fact the reporters either did not know or did not consider in any way significant to their slam. I mean, why let the facts get in the way of a good old anti-American slur?
As I say, this isn't journalism. It's straight fiction. And lousy fiction at that. Passing it off as an offering from a "news" agency is beneath contempt.
Hat tip: Instapundit
My friend Peter Shankman is a very smart guy. He is one of the best PR people I know. Some of the events he has staged over the years to get attention for some of his clients have been legendary - and highly successful. He has a pretty good idea what works and what doesn't.
Peter recently started a group on Facebook aimed at getting PR people to help journalists who are looking for specific stories, or specific angles to specific stories. This week, he had the occasion to post a journalist's very specific request and volunteered himself to be the contact for PR people trying to reach that journalist.
The responses he got were eye-opening. And not in a good way. Peter was exposed first-hand to something that virtually every journalist I know has complained about for years: clueless PR people who ignore journalists' needs and push totally irrelevant crap - and then act surprised when the journalists won't deal with them.
Read what Peter has to say. And, if you're in PR, take it to heart.
Look, journalists do need PR people as sources. They want to know about RELEVANT stories. They want RELEVANT responses to their queries. They're willing to listen to RELEVANT pitches.
But they have no time for PR people who ignore their needs, their stories, their beats. If PR people can't understand that, they'll never understand how those same journalists wind up as implacable foes.
I'm pretty sure the PR world can do better.
One of the most irritating feature of broadcast news operations these days is the overworking of the phrase BREAKING NEWS. It's used to cover virtually any story, from a major crisis to some celebrity's hangnail.
To get an idea how this plays with news consumers (besides me, as I tend to ignore most 24-hour broadcast news channels for precisely this reason), take a look at this column in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online. I think the author gets it exactly right.
As for me, I think that if I were news director at one of these outlets, I'd probably try to promote the slogan, "When news breaks, we'll fix it!" But then I suppose I wouldn't be news director for long...
