The Science of Communicating & Marketing Your Business

This post's response is from Windkiller and is a little longer than the rest.

Issues:

• Why are the free flow of information and the maintenance of journalistic integrity important?
  Not sure how these two are normally related enough to be part of the same question. The free flow of information is important to the development of trust between those who have a right to the information and those who control/influence the dissemination of the information. In the case of government, people want to know what their government is doing, where their tax dollars are going, and how their rights are being affected.

  Based on the wording of the question, it could be argued that a lack of journalistic integrity impedes the free flow of information. Specifically, if 7 news sources report 7 incongruent stories about the same event, the recipient of those stories needs to spend invest time and mental energy in determining which story to believe with a consequence that deep down, even the story believed is questioned. Eventually it becomes easier to ignore the story than to try and understand it.

  In a different context, journalistic integrity used to be important because information recipients wanted a source they could trust to give them an unbiased, accurate account of events. Now, the number 1 source of news for college students is Jon Stewart, an unabashed Democrat. One of the more popular information sources online (one I used in responding) is Wikipedia a reference for which anyone can become an author. By and large, I am not so sure people tune in to information sources they believe so much as information sources that tell the story they want to hear.

• How is the Web affecting the way businesses and governments share information with the public?
  Two ways. First, more information is disseminated than ever before because the cost of dissemination is lower than ever before. Second, the businesses and governments can disseminate their information online in a manner that suits them, whereas previously a journalistic intermediary was needed.
• Discuss the importance of maintaining honesty and integrity in business--why is it important for business success?
  Buyers want a source of goods/services they can trust. I've told you I don't think there is a more important quality to look for in a Bar-admitted attorney than trust. In the sale of goods, you want a seller that will stand behind the quality of the goods (a deterrent in eBay and online shopping is the ability to return a defective product) and will make accurate representations about those goods. One of the reasons word of mouth advertising is so effective, there is little way to really appreciate the honesty/integrity of a business (short of a negative news story) beyond experience and learning about that experience generally requires either taking a chance and getting it on your own or finding it from someone else (a friend with 'journalistic integrity').
• How should the public fall-out be handled by the PR team? What should businesses do when they are caught being unethical?
  Come clean and manage the punishment. Baseball is a great example. Barry Bonds has been getting bashed for years now because he won't admit his steroid use. Clemens is headed down the same road. Ken Caminiti, Jason Giambi, and Gary Sheffield, all headline players, all-stars, with a couple of most valuable player trophies, have admitted steroid use is some fashion and their crimes have generally been forgiven by the media/public. People have a great capacity to forgive, but it needs to start with an admission of wrong doing.
• Who funds the Center for Public Integrity? Is it truly independent?
  According to Wikipedia, CPI has received over one million dollars in donations from George Sonos who generally donated vast sums four years ago to impede the reelection of George Bush. For some organizations, one million would not redirect interests, but CPI has an operating budget of $3-4m, so that sum could do it. Conservatives have attacked CPI for liberal leanings while liberals have donated money. Does that mean they are not independent? I am not sure. You could argue CPI developed leanings, and contributors who believed in those leanings sent money, from which I would be willing to believe CPI's leanings have been developed independently. You could also argue CPI's primary mission is fighting to publish information the administration seeks to conceal and, with a Republican administration, that mission is going to find favor with Democrats. I'd look to see if they were as aggressive about Clinton's scandals (Monica, perjury, White Water) as Bush's, but I don't have the time. Instead, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt that they are presently liberal (which is to say they may not be neutral, but they could still be independent)
• Does the Center for Public Integrity have integrity?
  I'd have to go back and look at the 935 times identified by the study (presumably published by CPI) that Bush was lying. If they can show convincingly that Bush knew/likely knew that he was not being truthful on those occasions, then I'd have support for their integrity. If they are using presumptions and/or information that was only available after the fact to show Bush made inaccurate statements 935 times (or a percentage of the 935 times), then I would say this story and its sensational headline is evidence of their lack of integrity.
• What is the purpose of the center for public integrity? Is that purpose being served?
  Again, found that on Wikipedia. The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit news organization dedicated to producing investigative reporting on public officials, government policy and the interests that compete for influence. The cynic in me says their business has the same purpose as any other, to make the owners/members money. Despite not being listed among management or staff and Lewis continues to draw an annual salary approaching 6 figures (half his executive director salary), so that purpose is being served. Looking at the staff, I see someone with experience at Amnesty International, another at Greenpeace, and another who was employed for ten years by a Unitarian publication (closest thing I could find to a right-wing association).

  After reviewing (very briefly) the stories on their web site, they don't do a story unless they are hacking at people/entities in positions of authority. So if you are in a position of authority, do you ever grant them an interview or share your story with them? No, because it won't save you and it will probably do more harm. So they only get one side of the story and they only seem interested in one side of the story.

  I liked this one. Discussing the $15b bill the President signed to help prevent/address/alleviate the AIDS problem in third-world countries, only 60% of that money was new commitments whereas the rest had already been committed. So the administration increased aid by 150% and that becomes a point of criticism? They were also critical that too much effort was spent encouraging abstinence, fidelity, and condom use and discouraging the sex trade to restrict the spread of AIDS. These are free/cheap solutions for the population to help themselves and that is a bad idea? I think if the bible beaters said we should wear coats, hats, and mittens in cold weather, the left wingers would be demanding schools send kids out in January in shorts and t-shirts. Addendum to my previous statement - because all articles need to be written with the slant that those in authority are wrong, I would say the lack of balanced reporting in that regard means they lack integrity.

  Most people/entities (in my view) do some things right and some things wrong. Whether it is bad decision-making, confused goals/priorities, or what have you. If an information source feels constrained to only report the bad or only report the good of a specific group or entity, that source has an integrity problem.

  ---

  Upcoming Conferences:
  • Civics, Social Media and the Countdown to Election '08 at the Boston Social Media Club's 7 Feb 08 Meeting
  • New Communications Forum 2008 22-25 April 08 in Sonoma Valley, CA
  • SUNY Marketing Professionals Conference at the Fashion Institute of Technology in NYC, 11-13 June 08
  Come on by and say hello.

  Sign up for the NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.