Friday, March 16, 2012

TAL Retracts Apple Story


 

 TAL Retracts Apple Story
What happens when we get it wrong?
To me...this was always stunning. I put a lot of faith in my reporters and producers to get it right. I also had faith that our national providers were going to get it right.

This can be a learning experience. As a station manager I learned quickly that we needed to respond quickly and with a unified message. Do you have a policy in place to respond when this happens? What are they? Are you willing to share them?

No matter who is responsible for the mistake, from the listener's perspective it is the station's responsibility to respond. There were instances where reporters got it wrong. Usually a source was not fully vetted. Fortunately, we did have to deal with the fabrication of facts by our staff. Not only were corrections made, but the corrections resulted in more depth to the coverage. The hardenst part internally seemed to be that we made a mistake...at least early on. As managers we had to put those inclinations aside and fully investigate what happened. We found in many other instances that it was a matter of perception and not really a mistake. How we handled those perceptions was important.


To be clear, others have reported on the poor conditions at the Apple plant in China.  Jonathan Kealing  reporting for Public Radio International quotes Ira Glass, It had become impossible to separate what Mike Daisey actually knew from what he didn't, so the program was retracting the entire episode.

But in this case, This American Life is saying there were fabrications to the story.
Pulling it is the first thing. This American Life is meeting the issue head-on. Admitting errors and then, hopefully, moving on. TAL has a retraction and an episode in place about the issue at it's website.

Do you have policies in place to handle issues like this at your station?
What are they.  Please share your thoughts.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Social Media and Dual Personas


I think the era of dual personas is over. You used to be able to separate your work from your private life but, not anymore. If you speak publicly or, are involved in any issue of public concern, the word gets out there. 

Social media is playing a huge part in the rapid decline of dual personas for individuals and institutions.

There are two recent examples of how issues of public interest have played out on social media. As a disclaimer, it does not matter whose side you are on. How these issues played out on social media changed the outcome. 

The first was Komen's decision to pull funding from Planned Parenthood because of Planned Parenthood's position on contraception and abortion. The hue and cry on Facebook and Twitter was intense. The result was a restoration of the funds to Planned Parenthood and several resignations at Komen. Komen could still decide not to renew their grant to Planned Parenthood.

The second is the media storm surrounding Rush Limbaugh and his public comments about the Georgetown law student. Again, social media is playing a huge part in this issue. Rush has lost several advertisers. 

There's a difference between broadcast media and web 2.0. Broadcasters and print are used to putting the content out there as the final word. There has been some input from users of the media through letters to the editor and emails. This has changed. Through social media consumers have become content providers. Individuals joining together on social media wield a lot of influence. Rush crossed the line. He's done it before. The difference now is the instant and intensive response on social media. Rush apologized on the air saying it was a joke. He has not apologized directly to Sandra Fluke for his very personal attack.

I've been using social media to keep informed on this issue. Take a look at this video from Jon Stewart shared through Gawker. I found it at LinkedIn on their news feed. Check out the comments at the bottom.


Have you seen this evolving in the past year or two? I would be interested in your thoughts.