A quick prologue: I’ve discovered major breaking news events always reveal something about the way TV stations cover important stories. We find out more about what works for us, what doesn’t, what we should do, and what we shouldn’t do. Today, I have feelings similar to the ones I had after watching the unfolding tragedy in Newtown. It’s mostly sadness, but there is also a dose of reflection.

As a morning show producer, I’m asleep during the day. At 4:25 p.m. Monday, I just happened to wake up, turn to my phone, and see several breaking news texts. I rolled out of bed, turned on my TV, and switched through the networks’ live coverage of the Boston Marathon bombings.

I’m curious, and a know-it-all, so I wanted as much information as possible. As I changed channels, I stuck with CBS. Scott Pelley’s delivery engaged me more than Brian Williams (though I typically lean toward Williams). Once I realized CBS wasn’t getting updates as fast as I wanted, I hopped back to NBC, then my ABC station (which turned to a local broadcast), then to ESPN. I reached a point where I knew everything the stations knew (and what they hadn’t confirmed). It then dawned on me: competition doesn’t serve the audience well in times of chaotic breaking news.

Given the number of injuries, the lack of a suspect, and the potential danger still looming, this should have been a situation where the networks (and other news outlets) pool together efforts to ensure the public is correctly informed. I realize the FCC won’t allow stations to collude, but I know a bending of the rules should be allowed from time to time to serve the greater public. Clearly, some news outlets are better than others at getting the latest information from police, hospitals, public officials, etc. In the face of tragedy, the desire to “win” should be subservient to the need to get people informed.

I noticed the stations failed to acknowledge any developments on social media. After I turned off the TV around 5:30, I checked my TweetDeck, and saw people sharing Google’s Person Finder, to help people track loved ones. Perhaps the networks brought it up after I stop watching, but based on the hour of coverage I watched, they ignored social media.

Imagine how worthwhile and valuable TV’s coverage could be if all the networks shared important pieces of information like this to its viewers. This collaboration doesn’t have to last days. It might only need to last until the day ends (depending on when tragedy strikes), or a threat has subsided. By Tuesday morning, I think they collaboration window for Boston probably closed since an imminent danger seems to have subsided.

I’m sure my calls for “teamwork” will fall on deaf ears. I understand it might even be too difficult to contact every single news outlet to confirm what they’ve confirmed while scrambling during breaking news. But I will remain optimistic that something can be done that can improve TV’s response to tragedy that better serves the public.

Mike Brannen is a morning newscast producer for KSTP, the ABC affiliate in Minneapolis-St.Paul. Before that, he was a producer at KIRO7 in Seattle, where he led the 4:30 a.m. show to a #1 share in the U.S. He received an MA in Broadcast Management from the University of Missouri-Columbia in 2010 and received his Bachelor of Journalism degree the year before. He shares more about his life at mikebrannen.com and on Twitter: @MikeBrannen.

By: Mike Brannen

I’ve always maintained that the hardest part of a journalist’s job is enterprising original stories. It’s even more difficult if you have to do it five days a week. I do not envy the reporters at my TV station.

Presenting new stories daily is part of their job description. I am a newscast producer, so I’m not expected to offer my own original story each day. I feel I do get another pass because I work overnights. Come on, who am I supposed to call at 3:00 a.m. to develop good stories? However, I like to contribute something here and there.

When I talk about original stories, I think of a few things:

1. It’s not from a press release
2.  It’s a follow to a story that people might have forgotten about
3. It’s something no one else has even mentioned yet

Despite my work schedule, I do maintain a social life outside of work, especially when I wake up in the early evenings (you read that part right).

Recently, the Minnesota chapter of SPJ had a trivia night, and teamed up with the members of the Minnesota Public Relations Society of America. The first five minutes were tough; I didn’t know anybody and didn’t recognize anyone. I put my coat down near a group, and just said hello.

They were all PR folk. Minutes after the standard “where do you work, where are you from” questions, it was already time to announce the trivia teams. A trivia night was an excellent idea, because every team had a least one journo and one PR rep.

In between questions, our team learned more about each other, exchanged business cards, and had a good time (it helped that we took 2nd place). Afterwards, I caught up with the first group from that night, chatted more, and traded more cards.

I have at least three new story ideas from that night. Granted, look at who was there: PR reps. Their job is to GIVE you stories. It’s a match made in heaven. You need stories, they have ones they want you to cover.

I’m sure someone reading this will say, “those PR reps will send your newsroom a press release anyway, so why butter them up?” I argue that the personal connection with these people will give you an edge later. You’ve got a foot in the door and they’ll scratch your back a bit more. Your interaction with them gives them validation for what they are doing, and makes their efforts worthwhile. When you do something for someone, they’ll return the favor (at least, that’s the way it should be).

What I learned from that night is that an easy way to find good stories is to meet with the people who are ready to have a story to tell. Networking events (especially ones with PR) are packed with people who are trying to sell themselves. They WANT to talk to you.

Give them an ear, and see what you find.

Mike Brannen is a morning newscast producer for KSTP, the ABC affiliate in Minneapolis-St.Paul. Before that, he was a producer at KIRO7 in Seattle, where he led the 4:30 a.m. show to a #1 share in the U.S. He received an MA in Broadcast Management from the University of Missouri-Columbia in 2010 and received his Bachelor of Journalism degree the year before. He shares more about his life at mikebrannen.com and on Twitter: @MikeBrannen.

Anyone who knows me personally knows that I swear, and often. I rarely, if ever, use actual swear words in my writing — I often opt for the strong, but less shocking cousins, like heck and crap. This article (in the The New York Times) about women’s magazines got me thinking about what I’ve started to see as a trend as a consumer — swear words (or the character-laden alternatives) in print.

Basically, the article talks about how women’s magazines are looking to use stronger language, language used in the offices of the magazines — where women are powerful and not afraid to use whatever language necessary to get their points across. Even if those points seem to come across on the edge of their six inch stilettos.

Journalists have always cursed — I’ll never forget my first day in a newsroom…I think I heard (what I call) the big five within the first ten minutes, but those words NEVER graced the pages of the newspaper. They never even graced the screens of the blogs.

What do you think? Do you think it’s OK to curse? In my social media branding, I never use curses…I also dislike using LOL or other colloquialisms in my professional posts, but my personal blog is full of those types of “common man” phrases.

On one hand, I believe it is our job as reporters to analyze different things that happen in the world and bring it down to an easy-to-digest story in 500 words or less (or inches, if you’re into that sort of thing). On the other hand, I believe that part of that means learning and understanding — and using — the language of your readers.

Is it our job to lift people up? To educate them, to make them highlight our words on iPads/iPhones (or the good old fashioned highlighter) to be defined at a later date? Isn’t it our responsibility to make people learn?

Share your thoughts with me — I want to know if this is a women’s thing, a reporter thing or just a “thing.” And, if you need to swear to share your thoughts, take a minute and see if you can’t save a few characters by using another word (even perhaps (horror of horrors) an abbrev).

Victoria Reitano is the Digital Producer for LIVE with Kelly and Michael. She is also the publisher of The Giornalista Files, her personal blog and portfolio site where she shares her ideas about being an early career lady journo with anyone who will listen. Reitano feels Bikram Yoga is the perfect compliment to her obsessive need to consume information on a constant basis. Connect with her on Twitter @giornalista515.

Is this is a criminal tweet?

“BREAKING: Confirmed flooding on NYSE. The trading floor is flooded under more than 3 feet of water.”

On October 29th, when Hurricane/Post-Tropical/Superstorm Sandy barreled through the east coast, water poured through the streets and subways of New York. Amidst the chaos, and people’s overwhelming desire to tweet the most exclusive information first, the aforementioned tweet was sent out through the Twitter user “@comfortablysmug.” CNN picked up the tweet before doing its own fact-checking, and realizing the New York Stock Exchange was not actually flooding.

CNN backtracked, which as of this year, has burned them badly. Cue the CNN Public Relations twitter account:

“CORRECTED: #NYSE officials reporting that floor is NOT flooding at this time.”

So many incorrect tweets, so much retraction. Now who is the culprit behind the original incorrect tweet? It is Shashank Tripathi, he is a manager for the congressional campaign of Republican Christopher Wright for New York’s 12th Congressional District. On Tuesday, October 30th, a day after his tweet, he resigned. He apologized for several false tweets, saying “I deeply regret any distress or harm they may have caused.”

I’m not sure of the timeline of events, but also on Tuesday, New York City Councilman Peter Vallone told Buzzfeed.com that he might consider criminal charges. He told the website, the “Manhattan DA is taking this very seriously.”

I want to discuss what is the likelihood of this happening and if there’s a Pandora’s box it could open. Since the First Amendment doesn’t narrowly address free speech posted through social media, we have to accept that all speech is protected (with perhaps the exception of violent threats, but that’s another discussion). Therefore, the chances of Tripathi facing any punishment seems doubtful. I’m certain Tripathi issued his apology after learning he could get in big trouble for it.

Clear and Present Danger Test
One could make the case that in times of natural disaster, such speech isn’t completely protected, even if it is on social media. Let’s go back to the old standard of protected speech: the Clear and Present Danger test. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. established it in his famous opinion for the case Schenck v. United States, back in 1919:

“The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.” Additionally, he said in times of war, speech is also limited given the tense circumstances war brings. Also in his opinion, he explains that free speech doesn’t protect someone from yelling “fire” in a theater when there isn’t a fire.

Natural disasters, especially in the moment of impact, create a dangerous environment. The dissemination of correct information is crucial when time is of the essence. People purposefully providing lies can jeopardize rescue efforts, or detract from them. However, what is difficult to prove is whether or not someone is intentionally lying, or just doesn’t have the right information. I would argue people who thoughtfully type the letters into a tweet are responsible for the facts they present. A simple verbal utterance, untruthful or misinformed, should receive a higher level of protection than that what is tweeted, because an audience within earshot of the message is smaller than the online community.

CNN Accountable
If the Supreme Court would rule on limiting speech made online, it could create a troublesome slippery slope for TV news. Consider how much cable and local news networks rely on social media to gather information. Earlier I mentioned CNN reported what Tripathi tweeted. Can you hold CNN accountable for false information? I’m sure the network would argue that by saying “we’re hearing reports” before any statement helps them wipe their hands clean of any responsibility. Obviously, they are still accountable for everything they report. A Supreme Court ruling may force CNN and other networks to do its own original reporting (gasp!). I would have to support such a ruling because it ensures accuracy.

When it comes to tweeters sending out information just to gain followers, Vallone told Buzzfeed: “I think the consideration of criminal charges will assure this kind of stuff doesn’t happen again,” but also said that the criminal case is a “very difficult case to make.” Ultimately, I don’t see the Supreme Court ruling on social media anytime soon. I think the Court is letting people use their own judgments when it comes to getting information from social media. So, people will simply have to rely on their instincts to figure out which tweets are true, which are incorrect, and which ones are completely made up.

Mike Brannen is a morning newscast producer for KSTP, the ABC affiliate in Minneapolis-St.Paul. Before that, he was a producer at KIRO7 in Seattle, where he led the 4:30 a.m. show to a #1 share in the U.S. He received an MA in Broadcast Management from the University of Missouri-Columbia in 2010 and received his Bachelor of Journalism degree the year before. He shares more about his life at mikebrannen.com and on Twitter: @MikeBrannen.

Something incredible happened this week at the newspaper where I got my start. And what might seem like a small company dispute on the surface was actually a symbol of a larger industry problem.

As a freshman pre-journalism major trying to find his place among the Bulldog fans at the University of Georgia in 1999, The Red & Black quickly became my new home. In fact, I applied to work there before I even moved into my dormitory.

And they didn’t just hire anyone. You had to prove you wanted the job. I was asked to report on three news stories – my own interviews, my own writing. The only experience I had going into these assignments was working on my high school newspaper, which wasn’t exactly an environment that allowed for students to be entrusted with objective news reporting. But I soon became a stringer for The Red & Black – my first real, paying job as a journalist ($6.50 per story … the “big bucks”).

But it was more than that. In the realm of college journalism, working for The Red & Black meant you were one of the cool kids. A byline that read “By David Brandt, The Red & Black” said to any reader, “I chose to report this news and convince you to read this story, because it’s important for you to know.” It was baptism by fire, and it wasn’t for just some school paper. This was a real newspaper through and through. It was real, and its independence was not to be trifled.

Despite the glory of being a part of that publication, it was also a training ground. It was where I first learned about the impact of a lede, how to ensure accurate quotes, and the value of (at least) two independent sources to the objectivity of my work. I didn’t stay at UGA and made a few mistakes while I worked at The Red & Black, but while I was there I took that opportunity to decide whether being a newspaperman was what I wanted for myself. Every decision I made and every experience I had there, good or bad … I owned.

I got more lessons from a semester with the paper than I did from most of my classroom education. And though most of the latter was obtained at a private college after I left UGA, never did I receive a set of parameters like the now infamous memo given to the staff at The Red & Black last week.

And what a greedy list of demands it was, written by a company board member who couldn’t even spell “libel,” according to reports from the RedandDead.com – the result of top editors and others from The Red & Black staff standing up for the integrity of what The Red & Black means to them. They may have walked out, but they didn’t quit – within 24 hours they set up the social media equivalent to a phoenix, and continued reporting on news about the University of Georgia and its community. The service was more important to them than the brand, just as it should be always.

But as I write this blog, it appears that some form of healing has begun. The board member who authored the memo I referenced above has resigned. The demands for content review by personnel other than students have been dropped. And the former editor in chief and former managing editor are, along with others, applying for their jobs again. I hope their status is reinstated … they’ve earned it. It’s a scenario that they may find themselves having to play out again in their professional careers, given the increasingly controlling role of executives and corporate boards over what content is published or broadcasted – or in some cases, what is even allowed to be deemed “news.”

Many young journalists go into their careers eager to find a great “Watergate” experience. Frankly, I hope tomorrow’s students are eager for an experience that these student journalists at UGA had this week … complete with camaraderie, a test of one’s ethics, and loyalty to the great institution they’ve chosen to serve: objective, independent journalism.

And in a media industry where journalism is more and more stained by corporate interests and political favoritism, tomorrow’s journalism students are going to need an example to admire, one that will guide them to an ultimate truth: Businessmen don’t decide what journalism is … that’s a job for journalists.

Long live the Red & Dead.

David Brandt is the Web managing editor for the Institute of Industrial Engineers, where he writes and edits Web content, produces new media projects, and writes for a monthly magazine. You can follow him on Twitter @iamdavidbrandt.

Grab a pen and pad. Write 1-10 in the left hand column. Now, describe yourself. What do you put first? Man? Woman? Daughter? Son? I put journalist, and I’m going to tell you why that makes me so happy I can hardly contain my smile as I write this.

If you’ve been reading my posts, you know I tend to have strong feelings about…just about everything, except politics (hold your comments). I am a passionate journalist who loves getting up every, single day and going to work.

Why? And, you may be saying, do you love getting up when it’s cold and rainy? I am not a robot, I’m a journalist, so of course there are days I’d rather stay cuddled up in bed, cozy and warm, but I DO love what I do. Do you?

Being a journalist means you get to sit on the “sidelines of history,” and write the “first draft.” Being a digital media journalist and, more recently, a producer for a nationally syndicated television show, means I not only get to experience the first draft of history first hand, but I’m also part of the generation that will change the way journalism is done. And if THAT isn’t a good enough of an excuse to get out of bed every morning, I don’t know what is.
(more…)

Edited 12:23 by Lynn Walsh

Edited 12:46 by Scott Leadingham

Ethics. Remember that class in college? Maybe it wasn’t something you learned till grad school, or on the job. Perhaps it was rolled into your media law class Either way, when we march down (or up) to get our diplomas, we — Journalists — all know that it is wrong to copy other people’s work. We know that it is wrong to fabricate quotes.

We know this. However, the internet is filled with plagiarism and lies, even among those we regard as “best in class.”

CNN, The New York Times, Jim Romensko, Fareed Zakaria, Jonah Lehrer, Poynter — all have recently been at the center of discussion about possible plagiarism or fabrication (or in Romensko’s case, “incomplete attribution”).

All of these names should mean something to you — to many of you, they are well regarded sources in the industry. However, they may also mean “plagiarism” or other missteps to you based on the recent (and not so recent) actions of these reporters and reporters at these outlets.

(Correction – The preceding paragraphs have been updated to reflect that Romenesko and Poynter were not involved in any direct case of plagiarism, but rather that Romenesko left Poynter after a controversy about attribution.)

What drives reporters to plagiarize and, more importantly, how do we stop ourselves from losing sight of what is truly important as we advance in our careers?

That’s what’s #muckedup this week. We’re joining forces with @MuckRack to bring you a chat tomorrow night — 5pm PST/8pm ET and we’ll be discussing all of this and more.

Bring your passion to this, #GenJ — after all, that’s all we, young journalists, have and I don’t know about you, but I am NOT ready to give it up without a fight.

Follow @MuckRack and the #muckedup hashtag. @LWalsh and I (@giornalista515) will be tweeting on our own handles and from @SPJGenerationJ (using #GenJ) as well, but be sure to follow #muckedup because we want to get all the questions answered in a timely fashion.

Victoria Reitano is a Digital Producer at Live! with Kelly. She works at ABC in New York and is so happy to be reunited with her true love – Manhattan. In her spare time, she dabbles with her blog, The Giornalista Files, where she shares her ideas about being an early career lady journo with anyone who will listen. Reitano feels Yoga is the perfect compliment to her obsessive need to consume information on a constant basis and when she’s not practicing that, she’s cycling at one studio or another as spin is the perfect compliment to her Staten Island background — fist pump, anyone? Connect with her on Twitter @giornalista515 for laughs, thoughts and some tricks of the trade.

We’ve seen a lot of mistakes in the news lately. What causes this? Why are reporters so willing to give up all their instincts to be first? Is it the reporters? Is it the networks? Is this driven by the advertisers? The public? These are the questions (and more, of course) we will be discussing in our July #GenJ Twitter chat. Join us Monday, July 23 at 9pm ET on @SPJGenerationJ to chat with fellow reporters about what you think causes the rapid-fire news presentation these days and, what we can do to change it.

Haven’t been to a chat before? Check out this Storify of our May chat to get an idea of the format.

If you have any questions, tweet @SPJGenerationJ or @giornalista515 before Monday.

CNN is like family to me.

The first-ever 24-hour news network in the industry and I share a few traits. Both of us were born in 1980. Both of us were born and raised in Atlanta. And both of us completely lose it whenever snow falls for more than 20 minutes in and around town.

We also both love journalism … right? I do, though I struggle with its state in the realm of public discourse from time to time. And I’ve been thinking for a while now that CNN has been struggling with it to the point of desperation. It tried to stretch itself so thin to meet the supposed desires of an audience more and more inundated with hyperbolic, personality-driven commentary, incessant social media fandom, and outlandish publicity stunts – largely thanks to the neighborhood kids that eventually hit their growth spurts to become CNN’s bullies: MSNBC and FOX News.

Ratings for the network have been reported to be at their lowest point since before the Persian Gulf War in the early 1990s, an event that introduced the era when CNN set new standards for reporting and made 24-hour news coverage essential to the viewing public. Earlier this month, political correspondent turned-anchor John King had to see his show cancelled and replaced by an extended hour of Wolf Blitzer’s “Situation Room,” complete with the beard that’s as monotone as his voice. For several years before then, the network went through a cycle of prime time shows that all ultimately failed until the network settled on pulling the quasi-network brand Anderson Cooper back to the slot.

But it was the June 28 decision by the Supreme Court regarding the Affordable Health Care Act that the deer that is CNN jumped in front of the oncoming truck. For several minutes as the decision was being read, CNN wrongly reported that the law known as “Obamacare” had been overturned. Granted, FOX News also blew it by delivering the wrong outcome of the SCOTUS decision, but they’re regularly doing things like that – to the point that this May 2012 survey shows that viewers who watch FOX News know less about current events than people who don’t watch TV news at all. And yet, FOX News remains No. 1 in cable news ratings.
(more…)

While we may not be rocking in treehouses, we’re certainly rocking the Internet. Tweets come and go all day long, but have you ever stopped to think about what exactly YOU should be tweeting?

My social media strategy for my personal brand is simple: don’t share it unless you would show it to your grandma (which, in my case, pushes some boundaries, but I’m ok with that); share some personal tidbits; be aware of your followers and YOUR message.

I’ve been told I’m crazy, stupid and foolish for this strategy, but guess what – MediaBistro just vindicated the heck out of it! (Insert crazy touchdown dance here).

In this recent MediaJobsDaily article, the author wonders if “we’ve been doing Facebook wrong our whole careers,” to which I say — if you’re not sharing personal details, then YES, yes you have!
(more…)