Brad Marley

Not only did the tragic events of September 11 change our outlook on the world, it changed how we get the viewpoints that shape our perspectives.

Before the attacks, news was delivered at a slower pace, which reflected our demand for news.  But the rapid-fire coverage of 9/11 brought with it an unexpected shift in how we get our news. Certain tools became necessary to give us our fill of up-to-the-second updates, and these tools were used so often in the days and weeks after, that they never went away.  Now, when you turn on the news or open a newspaper, you’re seeing the artifacts of those tools.

With the 10th anniversary of 9/11 still fresh in our minds, let’s take a look at four ways the attack changed how we get our news.

The News Ticker – Even though it debuted on TV in the 1950′s, the news ticker didn’t gain popularity until the public had a real need to know information as it happened. September 11 was that trigger. In the days following the attacks, those tickers were the perfect way to relay the current homeland security threat. Now you can’t turn on the news (or ESPN) without seeing it. It’s impossible to remember a time when it wasn’t crawling across the bottom of your screen.

Transparency – If a newspaper would have reported in the days leading up to 9/11 that terrorists were going to fly airplanes into buildings, I think most of us would’ve scoffed at that absurd notion and admonished the paper for running the story. But now, airlines detaining passengers and bomb threats make it into print because outlets (especially newspapers) can ill-afford to miss something. Of course, it’s a double-edged sword: there are some who call fear-mongering for posting these stories. I’m not sure there’s a happy medium.

Breaking News Alerts – Obviously, the ultimate breaking news alert was the attacks of September 11. [Editor's note: I watched the "9/11: As It Happened" special on MSNBC two nights ago, and I was amazed at how remarkably composed Matt Lauer & Co. were on The Today Show. Of course, we now have the benefit of hindsight, but there was no freaking out. They were a calming influence on a chaotic day.]

Anyway, I know I’m not the only one who gets a little anxious when The Office is interrupted by a special report. Thanks to Twitter, we usually learn about the breaking news before it breaks on television, but it’s still a bit unnerving when the national news cuts in, especially at an odd time. It seems we’ve been programmed to pay full attention when out-of-the-blue news hits, because we just don’t know. The media knows now what gets our attention.

Crowdsourcing – On a day when information was shared among sources so fast that nobody new what was real and what was fiction, many of the news outlets carrying the story relied on eyewitness interviews from people in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pa. to tell them what really happened. At one point during the MSNBC special, there was a report of a car bomb going off at the State Department, but one of their correspondents, who was at the State Department, nixed that rumor. This was the first time I can remember where the news relied on citizens to help report the news.

I’m sure there are more I’m forgetting (and I would love it if you pointed them out in the comments) but these four really stand out as being solid examples of how tactics that were used to report details of this tragedy were adopted for future use.

There’s a saying that says, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” In this case, I think it’s applicable.

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.

From a communications perspective, we have come a long way in the ten years since 9/11.

There was no Twitter. There was no iPhone. There was no Facebook. Almost every tool we use now to digest news was merely a figment of somebody’s imagination then. It makes 2001 seem downright prehistoric (and makes me feel old.)

This idea was the basis of a conversation I recently had with Kaileen Connelly, a colleague at Mullen in Detroit who falls into the “millennial” category. We were sharing our stories of how we learned the night before that bin Laden was dead, and I found hers of particular interest.

Rather than try to explain it myself, I asked her to tell her story in her own words.

Twitter became my go-to for live updates and remained the one technology to which I was glued.

I moved between word-of-mouth (Levin’s D.C. curious late-night flight) to the radio (760 WJR-AM) to my television (obnoxious CNN pundits) and to the next day’s newspaper coverage, but was reliant on my Twitter feed to hear what my “followers” thought of the developments as they unfolded.

Marshall McLuhan says that the medium is the message.  I say each medium changed the message.

Yes, each medium presented the message different, but it’s not about how the message was delivered, it was how each technology changed the message.

Here’s how it went:

Upon arriving in Detroit from Denver, Colo., I saw Senator Carl Levin (Mich-D) waiting at the Baltimore departure gate.  He was flying to D.C., but was taking the cheap flight, but late …  weird.

I tweeted it.

While walking out I heard a TSA agent talking to his wife about how he’d helped the Senator after forgetting his meds.  We started chatting, and I simultaneously saw tweets about President Obama holding a late-night Sunday press conference.  I told my new friend, and then I made a joke about the President probably announcing that we’re bombing a country or being bombed.

I tweeted it.

Anxious to hear the news, I checked my Twitter feed while being transferred to my car.  I then turned on my local AM radio station in my car.  This was not enough.  While at stops, I scanned my Twitter feed.  The news of Osama’s killing was out.

I retweeted it.

Finally, when I got home and the President still hadn’t spoken, I rushed to the T.V., busted open my laptop and waited.  CNN was blaring, HooteSuite was on fire, Facebook was quickly filling up, and my mom was blowing up my iPhone.

I watched, tweeted, facebooked, answered, and talked it.

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.

It’s not that hard to sway me. Even when I know I’m right.

A couple of days ago, a colleague and I were discussing the upcoming weekend, when I brought up the fact that Good Friday is a paid holiday.

“No it’s not,” she said. “Are you sure?”

I was firm in my belief that, yes, we did have this Friday off.

“I don’t believe you,” she replied.

Even though I was positive I had read the calendar of paid holidays correctly, that little seed of doubt was starting to sprout.

The longer we talked about a three day weekend, the less-sure I became that I knew what I was talking about. Finally, we enlisted the help of another colleague.

Turns out, I was right. (I knew it!) But if you had judged whether or not we had an extra day off solely on my conviction, you would have guessed (incorrectly, I might add) that I didn’t have the faintest clue what I was talking about.

The more I thought about my lack of confidence in a seemingly trivial discussion, the more I realized how doubt can influence your success in public relations.

(No, really, I have a point to make.)

When you pick up the phone to cold call a reporter to pitch a story, you must be entirely in your own corner, if you know what I mean.

Even if you think your pitch isn’t the best, you have to act like it is.

Know your facts.

Understand the reporter’s likely response, based on their beat.

Rehearse the pitch before you pick up the phone.

Make the reporter believe that your story is one worth telling.

Not every pitch we make is going to resonate with a journalist, but having the gumption to believe that your pitch is worthy of their time can go a long way in whether or not it sees print. And, like I said, if there is even an inkling of doubt in your mind, the reporter will sniff it out, then eat you alive.

If that doesn’t help you eliminate doubt, I don’t know what will.