Brad Marley

If there’s one thing we can take away from the Casey Anthony trial, it’s this: The media are no longer impartial observers.

Nancy Grace, a woman who bills herself as a member of the media, told her viewers two nights ago the following, after the verdict was delivered: “Somewhere out there tonight, the devil is dancing.”

Those are pretty damning words. If I didn’t know better, I’d say she was insinuating that Casey Anthony is guilty, even though a court of law found her to be innocent.

Whether you believe her, or not, is not the issue. The fact that she has a forum to spout her rhetoric is the issue.

Her story is like a lot of the talking heads who masquerade as journalists on the 24/7 news outlets.

According to Wikipedia, she went straight from the prosecutors office in Fulton County, Ga., to Court TV, skipping that whole “journalism” thing.

She made a name for herself with a blunt interview style that fits her agenda, and doesn’t allow her interview subjects a chance to speak for themselves, oftentimes interrupting them if their answers are silly, or don’t make sense.

Because of her wild popularity, she holds influence over a large audience; an audience that is, in all likelihood, swayed by what she says. It’s not hard to imagine a future case where her pre-trial rants influence an outcome. So for her to sit on her set and proclaim Anthony to be guilty — a direct counter to the actual verdict — is irresponsible, at best.

But she thinks she’s doing it under the guise of journalism.

Please.

She has about as much journalism experience as my three-year-old daughter.

In a time when newspapers continue to shutter their operations and lay off reporters who are trained to report the news, we are fed a steady diet of ex-lawyers and ex-judges who think that just because they worked in the field, they can freely give their opinions.

From a trustworthiness standpoint, this is a dangerous path we’re headed down, and I fear it’s only going to get worse.

Today’s guest on the world-renowned Five and One series is Marissa Raymo, a member of the special projects team at The Oakland Press and the paper’s Horse Sense blogger. [Editor's Note: She is also married to one of my best friends.]

Before we dive into the questions, I want to briefly explain why I asked Marissa to participate.

I am fascinated by the digitization of news media. The entrepreneurial journalists that “get it” are quickly starting to establish their presence over those who don’t, and Marissa is involved in a project that seeks to explore how new digital tools can enhance the news-gathering process. It’s really quite a fascinating project, but I don’t want to steal her thunder, so let’s get down to business.

What is the ideaLab?

The ideaLab is comprised of 18 Journal Register employees from various departments (editorial, sales, circulation, IT, and production) that were selected by our CEO John Paton and Advisory Board to experiment “with the latest technology and tools to help our company think differently about what we do and how we do it.” We were each given an Apple iPad, HP netbook, iPhone or Droid (based on our preference), and 25% of our work week to experiment and innovate. Pretty cool, right?

In your opinion, how are iPads and Flipcams changing how newspapers operate?

Our mobile tools have not only allowed us to transform into a multimedia company, but they have also allowed us to mobilize the print aspect of our business as well. Our reporters now upload stories and videos remotely, live stream at local events, and integrate print & digital with QR codes. One of our newspapers out of Connecticut recently opened it’s newsroom to the public as a newsroom café. Mobile technology allows us to be more in touch with the people we serve everyday.

You work for The Oakland Press. What is the consensus among some of the seasoned employees when it comes to the digitization of newspapers?

For the most part, I feel like people are excited about the changes. Digital First allows us to broaden our product offerings and the way we offer them. It also opens up the opportunity for new faces within our organization to step forward and make a contribution to the big picture (i.e. ideaLab). It’s been exciting and overwhelming and a bit scary at times, but mainly, exciting.

How difficult has it been to change perceptions on the news-gathering process?

At this point, it seems that most people have at least accepted the Digital First approach, if not completely embraced it. It was never really a question anyway. This is the way the industry is going and those that don’t want to follow along will eventually fall behind. I’m not sure why the perceptions of the newspaper business are so much different than other industries though. It’s still business and we have to evolve to meet the needs of our customers. It’s really that simple.

How do you plan to factor in what you’ve learned through ideaLab in your career?

The ideaLab has really allowed me to test the limits of my abilities. I had ideas before (more like fleeting thoughts), but never would have imagined that they could make a difference. Eventually I hope to use these skills to move into a position in digital product development and/or digital product sales training.

Finally, the “and One” portion of the interview: I know you enjoy writing. Who are your writing heroes?

Hmmm, that’s a toughie. I look up to writers that know how to “keep it real” without sacrificing their audience in the process. A few of my favorites would be Augusten Burroughs, David Sedaris, Stieg Larsson, Rudyard Kipling, Robert Jordan, William Faulkner….oh, and of course Brad Marley. [Editor's Note: Of course.]

***

I’d like to thank Marissa for flattering me taking time out of her busy schedule to answer a few of my questions. I hope this helps provide some insight into the changing face of journalism.

You can read all of the interviews in this series here.

The iPad is truly a tremendous piece of technology.

Restaurants use them in place of wine lists. Hospitals show their patients X-rays on them.

There’s no doubt they are going to revolutionize how we consume data. Especially when it comes to the content we read.

But whether you are flipping pages in a magazine, or swiping your finger across the iPad’s screen to flip digital pages, aside from the multimedia additions the iPad can deliver, the story remains the same, no matter the vehicle.

The one qualm I have with the iPad (most Apple products, actually) is the elevated importance we have bestowed upon this device; as if using it to complete a task as mundane as reading a book is so much more awesome because, dammit, I read it on my iPad, bro.

It’s no longer enough to tell your buddy you read Stieg Larsson’s latest. No. You read it on your iPad.

I didn’t misplace my cell phone. I misplaced my iPhone.

There’s a difference.

Now, we’re seeing examples of this in the media.

In an excellent piece of investigative journalism on Deadspin on ex-Tennessee coach Bruce Pearl’s past transgressions, there was a line toward the end of the article that struck me as off. It spurred the thought for this post, if you must know.

To put it in context, the other coach mentioned (Jimmy Collins) has a long-standing quarrel with Pearl. Here’s the line that was used to describe Collins’ reaction when he read what Pearl said about his latest controversy:

Reading that quote on his iPad one day, Collins smelled a familiar skunk.

That’s all well and good that Collins had seen this play out before. And it was totally relevant to include it in the piece.

But a mention of the iPad? It did nothing to advance the story, other than, maybe, the coach is hip. Or Deadspin is hip.

I don’t know.

Deadspin gets a ton of readership. I’m sure of it. So there’s no need to stoop to name-dropping hot products.

But they did it anyway.

And it was pointless.

What do you think? Does this kind of unnecessary mention in your media bug you? Or am I splitting hairs?

Image courtesy of Limbic.

I’m going to start off this post by telling you something: I secretly want to be a journalist.

When I was a senior in high school, I wrote an article for the school paper on why our school didn’t have a hockey team. With a perfectly serviceable ice rink right next door to the school and hockey popularity in Michigan booming,  it seemed like a no-brainer. But our athletic director, who I interviewed for the piece, insisted we didn’t have the money to undertake a new team. So I filed my story and thought nothing else of it until I learned the following year that my high school now had a hockey team.

I will never know if my sorry excuse for a hard-hitting investigate piece changed any minds. But I had an inkling that my words incited some sort of re-thinking. And that’s a pretty powerful feeling.

In what was to become a recurring theme in my life, I never pursued this career avenue, mainly because the naysayers (those who moan the lack of income) won.

So when the opportunity arose late last year to do some freelance journalism on the side for the local Trenton page on Patch.com, you can bet your sweet caboose I jumped at the chance.

And ever since I started writing for this publication, it has changed my entire perspective of how I go about my day job in public relations. So, rather than keep these nuggets of advice to myself, I want to share four reasons why other PR pros should consider freelance writing.

1. Improve Your Writing – Let’s just get this one out of the way. The more writing you do, the better you will be. And writing different forms — feature stories vs. press releases — will exercise your writing muscle.

2. Think Like a Journalist – It’s funny. When I conduct interviews with my story subjects, I am doing the complete opposite work that I do when I host interviews with reporters. But by doing so, I’m learning to think more like a journalist by identifying the questions that will get to the heart of the story.

3. Get Better at Multitasking – I think it goes without saying that my day job takes precedence over my freelance writing. But I still need to coordinate and conduct interviews on my own time. I also have two little kids. Day job + kids + freelance writing commitments = learning to prioritize. I’ve found I am starting to get more out of my time, if that makes sense.

4. If You Got It, Flaunt It – Don’t let your talents go to waste. I know I’m not a terrible writer. And I like to do it. You would be surprised how many people hate the process. So I vowed to myself late last year that I would put my talent to good use for myself and my family. Otherwise, what’s the point of having a talent?

Are you a PR person and a freelance writer? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Image borrowed from noodlepie’s Flickr.

In 1959, two ex-convicts traveled to Kansas for what they were led to believe was an easy score.

According to one of their former cell mates, a wealthy farmer from Kansas hid a large amount of cash on his property, and it was ripe for the picking.

The plan was simple: steal the cash, kill the family, and escape to Mexico. But only two parts of the plan came to fruition. They never found any money.

A brief about the unsolved murders in The New York Times captured enough of author Truman Capote's attention to cause him to convince fellow author Harper Lee to accompany him to Kansas so he could write about the crime before any arrests had been made. He spent six years on it — including interviews with the suspects – before it was published in four parts by The New Yorker.

Six years. That's equivalent to six decades in today's tweet-it-before-you-prove-it news cycle.

If Capote spent six years on a story today, the publisher would laugh him out of the building when he turned in his manuscript.

But Capote worked in a time when there wasn't as much urgency; you could let a story simmer before serving it to the public. You could make sure every word was accurate without somebody breathing down your neck to throw up something half-assed because they didn't want to be the last to file the report.

Obviously, those days are history, which makes this book somewhat of a recent relic.

I highly recommend it.