According to this article from the Telegraph.co.uk Apple’s patent application describes this technology as “enforcement routine” software, and the rumors are flying that this software would force users to watch or listen to advertisements which they would be unable to skip past.

Steve Jobs name is actually listed on the patent application, so the company must be taking this idea seriously.

How would this software be used?  I’m guessing that Apple could start offering music, or videos, or other things we all clamor for at no charge only after we watch an advertisement.  Or perhaps they’ll start giving away iPods and iPhones for free in exchange for making ads mandatory for those users.

Social Media is about consumer empowerment.  It’s about seeking information, not being forced to see or hear anything the consumer doesn’t want to see.  The companies that don’t understand that won’t be here tomorrow.

Steve Jobs and Apple really understand the marketplace, and over the last decade have done a great job of exploiting business opportunities by offering amazing products that people didn’t even know they needed.  They have created not only a successful business but as Seth Godin would point out, a Tribe.  Not just customers, but devoted fans.  Zealots even who can’t wait to buy the next “whatever”.

So here’s my take on the patent.  I think Apple has applied for a patent for this technology to make sure that this technology is used responsibly and its use doesn’t go rogue (sorry, the word just fit!).  I also think that by offering “free” ad driven services with compulsory advertising, they will drive even more traffic to a “paid” subscription model that would be ad free.

Consumers will have a choice.  Free with compulsory ads, or a subscription and no ads.

Have it your way!

Seems to work for Burger King!

What do you think??  I’d appreciate your comments.

This video kind of sums up what the patent would do to your computing experience.

News travels fast via Social Media.  Bad news travels even faster.  Carrie Prejean went on Larry King’s CNN show hoping to sell books.  Instead, she bared much more than we saw in her previously released semi-nude pictures.

I’m not sure how many viewers actually saw Carrie Prejean’s pathetic encounter with Larry King.  But hundreds and hundreds of thousands have seen the video below on a wide variety of websites.

Before you start on any new marketing campaign ask yourself this question, am I trying to hide something?

And this just in!  According to RadarOnline.com, there are 7 additional sex tapes and 30 more nude photos lurking in the digit-sphere.  The hits just keep on coming!

What used to work may still work, but not for long.

The survey of 1,972 MediaPost subscribers found that 57.7% “ideally” plan to use social media, while 56.3% “realistically” plan to include social media in their upcoming plans, MediaPost writes.

In another study conducted in August of 2009, by the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) in conjunction with B2B magazine found that 66 percent of marketers utilized social media in 2009, as compared to 20 percent in 2007. Fifty percent employ viral videos, up from only 25 percent in 2007. The study also revealed that Facebook, You Tube, Twitter and Linkedin (in that order) were the top choices of marketers.

Yet in a study just released on October 7, 2009  TargetCast reveals that  traditional media is still hanging in there – noting that “marketing in newspapers and magazines still score well in terms of consumer attentiveness and purchase influence”.  Click here to read the complete TargetCast Consumer Trend Report.

Here are some highlights from the TargetCast report:

Key findings:

● Newspapers and magazines score well in terms of attentiveness and purchase influence

● Men and women are consuming media differently

– Men are more likely than women to indicate that printed news is a less relevant source of news and information

● Newspapers and magazines are not considered as relevant today and are easiest to eliminate from usage

● The biggest usage declines were found among men and young adults 18-34 in newspapers, magazines and radio

● TV and Internet, respectively, identified as most important media – Young adults 18-34 rank the internet as more important than TV

The study concludes that:

• Newspapers have a legacy of breaking news and uncovering stories of historic proportion, yet they are losing ground to a generation of consumers embracing digital and mobile alternatives.
• Established magazines, often iconic brands, have begun to lose advertiser support after years of consistent readership and inspiring content.
• Over the past 100 years radio has been a ubiquitous part of our daily lives, however, after surviving the challenges of broadcast TV, the emergence of cable and the launch of the Internet, radio is slowly being tuned out by a generation addicted to personal, programmable MP3 players, iPods, iPhones and other multi-media devices.

While many will continue to use traditional and new media as much as they have in the past, it is important to understand the shifting relationship between how men and women and different generations will consume media in the future so the industry can evolve these media in a way that is relevant and impactful to consumers.

RadioTrends – TargetCast tcm Consumer Trend Report (Oct. 09 Page 6)

And while the TargetCast study shows that overall consumers seem to be happy with radio, a study reported in a September IAB SmartBrief shows that regardless of that public sentiment, radio is in a world of hurt.  The article says,

“The message coming from the radio industry is clear: Terrestrial radio is in trouble financially and things will get worse before they get any better. EMarketer foresees steep declines in ad revenues for the remainder of 2009 and into 2010, as many of radio’s former top advertisers in the automotive industry were among those hardest hit by the economic downturn. In 2009, advertisers will slash spending on terrestrial radio advertising by $3.2 billion, down 18% from 2008.”

Click here to learn more about eMarketer’s report “Internet Radio Makes Waves”.

The takeaway?

We’re at the dawn of a new era.  We’re experiencing first hand the “what the hell” stage of the biggest media shift since the invention of the printing press. And that’s huge.  Really huge.  It’s bringing full circle the transformation of media from word-of-mouth, to narrow-casting, to mass media, back to narrow-casting and the all new “Social Media”, which is “word-of-mouth” on steroids.

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again.  Traditional media is still vital.  But it is losing it’s vitality little by little each and every day.

Will traditional media be around in 10 years?  Absolutely!

What will it look like?  Your guess is as good as mine.

Social Media is, by nature, all about truth.  It has to be.  Because information spreads so quickly the truth always comes out.  Often sooner than later.

So, if you are a FOX News commentator yelping outrage at the White House for calling his FOX News network biased, why did he, only months before, attack the Bush administration for not going after that “other” biased news organization MSNBC?  And why does the FTC allow FOX News use the descriptor “News” in its name?

Talk about truth in advertising!

I think I’ll start getting all my news from John Stewart and the Daily Show.  It seems that the only place to get balanced news anymore is from a comedian.  Sure wish this was funny . .  .

Vodpod videos no longer available.

And a more serious look at the same issue.  Campbell Brown of CNN (formerly of NBC) finishes the phrase, “If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a . . . . . . ”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

I have a few election questions one of which I touched on in a previous post:

1. If our elected officials know that we citizens hate robocalls enough that they banned businesses from making them, why do they use them, even though they granted themselves a loophole, knowing that 99% of the calls are wasted, and/or just piss people off?
2. The city I live in, Bellevue, WA has one of the toughest sign ordinances in the country.  Retail establishments hire real people to hold signs at busy intersections because temporary signs are NOT ALLOWED.  Except during election season when candidates can post their signs willy nilly.

But this post isn’t about answering those questions, it’s about Social Media and how it’s being used in the election process in King County, WA where I live.

The County itself has done a nice job of incorporating Social Media tools to educate voters on the new process of mail-in only voting, and to bring awareness to the issues and candidates being considered.  In fact, King County has added a video voters guide which explains the issues and allows candidates to pitch themselves.  The video and its site are clean and easy to navigate but the videos are deathly boring.  But it’s a very nice complement to the printed voter’s guide and a wealth of online tools.

Now on to the races:

King County Executive:

In the County Executive race, Susan Hutchison has a very informative website.  Not sure I would have used this pic in a You Tube Video Post, but hey . . . .The Hutchison site has great navigation, a lot of information, endorsements, and terrific video; which you would expect from a former news anchor. What her site is missing is tools that allow people to forward information, or share pages people find interesting with their friends.

But the site gives a good flavor of the candidate, what she stands for, and reflects her personality well.

Dow Constantine’s site is not nearly as intuitive.  The home page contains an online pitch for volunteers to help reach 500,000 voters before the election – a very important goal I’m sure to the campaign; but probably not top of mind to the person who is wanting more information about the candidate before casting a vote.  Though the printed content is excellent, the site’s navigation is really clunky, with some navigation tabs across the top, but most of the interesting stuff along the bottom – and no button that takes you “home” which is very annoying.  There could be a lot more video integrated into the site; in fact I saw only one video on the entire site and it was produced when Dow announced his candidacy.  There are some pictures and some video but in order to see them you are directed to third-party sites – not a great solution.  There are, however, “share” buttons at the bottom of the pages.

Washington State Initiative 1033:

I had a very hard time finding Tim Eyman’s official website and was astounded that when I searched “Tim Eyman’s Website” I got page after page of links urging me to vote no on 1033, and no links supporting the ballot measure.  I declare the NO on I-1033 camp as the Social Media marketing winner in this campaign.

Washington State Referendum 71:

The Protect Marriage PAC (the PAC who opposes preservation of the Domestic Partnership Law) has designed a very effective website.  It is bright and inviting with lots of content, easy navigation, links to important information easily accessible from the home page, and tools for web surfers to share pages with friends; it really is worth looking at from a design and content perspective.  It shows that it was well thought out for use as a Social Media advocacy launching pad.  I’m sorry to say the Approve Referendum 71 organization’s site isn’t quite as intuitive and inviting as their opponents’ site from a Social Media standpoint.  There is an abundance of great information on the site and the navigation on the home page is good, but there is no easy way to get back “home”, and no way to easily share pages with friends via email or social networking sites.  And I really wish they had taken advantage of the wealth of videos that support approval of the referendum including this very effective video endorsement from Seattle Mayoral candidate Joe Mallahan.  Campaigns have to really start looking at the use of online video and the ease of sharing both campaign created and user-created video.  One thing I did really like, however, was the ability to create a custom profile picture “badge” for use on Facebook to show your support for the referendum.  That was a very clever touch!!

Speaking of the Seattle Mayoral Race:

Joe Mallahan’s campaign has created a very easy to navigate and engaging website; actually a well-connected mish/mash of several sites; including social networking site Ning, You Tube (though again, I wish the videos had been integrated into the site with a video channel widget (As an example I’ve included a link to a page on my website with a You Tube widget), an outsourced campaign data base site which handles donations and volunteers, and real-time rss Twitter feeds on the home page.  This mish/mash is held together very well with consistent navigation including a way to get home from all pages except from You Tube.  As in other sites there are no buttons on the site to easily share content.  Mike McGinn’s site is proof positive that you don’t have to spend a lot of money to create an effective website.  It appears that the McGinn camp is utilizing off the shelf blogging software as the backbone of the site.  The links to other sites are very clear.  The McGinn campaign did integrate a McGinn for Mayor You Tube Channel widget on their site along with a Flickr photo link, a nice touch .  The main website does have “share me” buttons on every post which makes it very easy for supporters to spread the word.  McGinn attempted to integrate Ning into his campaign, with a site called “We Like Mike” but I could only find a link to it from his Facebook Fan Page, and no real integration with the main website.  On the Ning site I did take a look at the multi-media tab which took me to a page with pictures from the campaign, and hidden waaaay down in the bottom right corner of the page were two radio interviews Mike had done with KIRO’s Dave Ross, and KUOW’s The Conversation.  Those should have been easily accessible from the candidate’s home page.

In Conclusion:

Websites are the backbone of any Social Media Marketing campaign.  They are the anchor that ties everything else together.  I did see a cautious start toward engagement, but I didn’t see much in the way of enabling supporters to easily crow online to their friends – which is what Social Media Marketing does best.  It seems that all of the campaigns took their online presence seriously though it was obvious that it was more important to some candidates and issues than others.  As media usage evolves over the next few years, campaigns will have to focus more strategic attention to their websites and overall Social Marketing strategies.  Because over the next few years, the 30 second news-bite may exhaust its 15 minutes of fame.

But today I’m celebrating the release of my Secrets of Social Media Newsletter. It contains links to lots of great articles and free e-books about Social Media, and a bit of information about what we’ve been working on lately at Friendly Voice.

If you missed it via email, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn etc, I’ve made it very easy for you to find right here. And if you really love it and crave more, you can access the Secrets of Social Media Newsletter Archives by clicking here.

I also wanted to share a little video we created for a friendly competition held by the Bellevue (WA) Chamber of Commerce.  Our video was the top vote getter in the competition.

Here’s the video.  I’d love to know what you think.

You see, in 2008 the FTC amended the Telemarketing Sales Rule which made it a violation of the law for businesses to place robocalls.

Why?  Well, according to Jon Leibowitz, Chairmain of the FTC:

“American consumers have made it crystal clear that few things annoy them more than the billions of commercial telemarketing robocalls they receive every year. Starting September 1 (2009), this bombardment of prerecorded pitches, senseless solicitations, and malicious marketing will be illegal. If consumers think they’re being harassed by robocallers, they need to let us know, and we will go after them”.

Unless of course, those robocallers happen to be politicians.

While I applaud this government agency for allowing us peace and quiet during the dinner hour, I and many other Americans find it ironic that our elected officials saw fit to exempt themselves from those same rules. The FTC reasoned that:

“Political calls are not placed for the purpose of inducing purchases of goods or services, and therefore are not ‘telemarketing’ within the meaning of the TSR”.

I beg to differ. Elections are ALL about money. Candidates want to be elected and to get elected they need money. Why? Campaigns are expensive to mount.  Very expensive.  But why spend millions for a job that doesn’t pay that well?

Because it’s an amazing gig.  Nice perks and terrific benefits like health care for life if you are elected to the House or Senate. No wonder our elected officials don’t see any problem with the current state of health care. They have theirs; what’s the beef?

But this isn’t a rant on health care, this is a rant on a little loophole in the law that allows our elected officials and every other political cause to violate our privacy and our sanity by incessantly dialing our phone numbers to “sell” us on voting for them, or for their friend or their friend’s cause.

I find political robocalls all the more annoying and insulting because:

1. Politicians know these calls are annoying but keep making them
2. Political organizations seemingly distribute your personal information to any and all related candidates and causes.
3. It’s impossible to get your phone number removed from their lists

I’ve emailed every candidate who has robocalled me on their own behalf and those who robocalled me on behalf of other candidates or causes and have requested to taken off their lists.

Only Dwight Pelz, Washington State Democratic Chair has bothered to respond, but not with the response I was hoping for.

His email to me was unapologetic, stating that robocalls are very effective; a sentiment echoed by Lance Stanley, owner of PoliticalCalling.com, an automated calling vendor out of Sacramento, Calif., that claims to be able to process 700,000 calls an hour.  According to Mr. Stanley (in a Newsweek article published on October 31, 2008),

“Automated phone calls are still the single most cost-effective way to reach out to people.”Since the company started in 2001, Stanley says business has grown by 25 percent each election year. “This year we’ll do about 100 million calls,” he says.”

Of course they are effective.  Compared to Television and other mass media robocalls are super inexpensive; about 7 cents a call.  So even if 1% of these calls actually go through, it’s worth the price.  That’s why sleazy businesses bombarded the public with these calls.  If connecting with 1% of households dialed makes telephone spamming financially advantageous, what are the real costs associated with annoying the 99% who answer and hang up?

Do robocalls actually work?  According to Newsweek reporter Matthew Philips:

“Research indicates that whether they’re listened to or not, robo-calls have no effect on voting habits. Don Green, a political science professor at Yale, subjected robo-calls to 12 randomized experiments for his 2004 book “Get Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout.” The results, he says, were revealing. “These calls never raise voter turnout. They have no mobilization effect, and no persuasion effect either. What matters is whether they change the probability of voting, and robo-calls have proven they do not.”

But “wait”, you say!  “Isn’t this supposed to be a blog about Social Media?  What does this have to do with Social Media?”

Everything!

Savvy marketers know that consumers are overloaded with messages and are rejecting traditional advertising,  They know that consumers don’t believe advertising.  They rely on recommendations from friends when making a purchase.

These marketers are  connecting with active and prospective customers online.  They are listening first and participating in conversations only after careful consideration.  They aren’t blasting their messages through a megaphone to millions, they are interacting.  They understand that it’s more effective to offer information for consumers to “pull” when they are ready rather than to “push” unwanted messages which are typically ignored.

The internet has changed the way I research candidates and issues.  All direct mail pieces go directly into the recycle bin. Robocalls go directly to voice mail.  I try to respond to each and every robocall with an email requesting to be removed from any future calling lists.  I read the online voter’s guide and articles and editorials in online publications I trust.  I read blogs, and even posts from my online friends.  I do my research just as I would if I were to make a purchase.   In depth; online.

A political do not call registry has been started and claims to have 85,000 members.  According to its founder and CEO Shaun Dakin, the Federal Do Not Call registry “should apply to political calls, as well.  Robocalls essentially are phone spam.  People should be able to opt out.”

But I don’t see that happening anytime soon. Because when it comes to winning an election, all the rules of civility are tossed out the window.

Here are some links to stories about political robocalls:

Shaun Dakin’s call for a Voter Privacy Bill of Rights in an op-ed in the Washington Post.

First Amendment vs. final straw: Can we stop those annoying political ‘robocalls’? Should we? By BOB WARNER, Philadelphia Daily News

Consumer Smarts with Phuong Cat Le, Seattle PI, Feb 28, 2008.

And, some pertinent You Tube Videos:

1.  The fortunes of advertisers are tied to the American Consumer, and things aren’t looking so good for the consumer in the short term with “real” 17.5% unemployment

2. With declining ratings for broadcasters and readership for printed media, there is no real universal connection-specific measurement and value standard.  We know we need to reach people, but where are they and how do we quantify our gut feel?

3.  Content revenue models will take some of the sting out of falling advertising revenues.  But who will earn those fees and will those fees generate enough income so that media companies can still profit from declining ad revenues?

4.  There is no equilibrium in the destruction of old media value and the creation of new economic value right now.  Revenues from online, mobile and other digital formats do not even come close to making up for the loss of traditional revenues.  If you are a media company (any media company) and haven’t yet figured out how to make money off of your digital content you are in good company.  No one has figured that out yet.

5.  As media related transactions accelerate they will do so with much lower valuations based on lower projected incomes.  To quote Ms. Mermigas,

“This process will force companies to reconsider their allocations and reassess how consumers and other businesses spend. Revenue projections will reflect cyclical economics and disruptive systemic change, such as digital adoption. One of the difficulties of determining a valuation for a potentially merged NBC Universal and Comcast is trying to assign reasonable projections for NBC TV network, station and online advertising spending over the next three years.”

What does this all mean?  Companies need to explore the entire media landscape before committing dollars to marketing efforts.  Whereas media mix used to refer to Print, TV & Radio, today that definition must be expanded to include so many other channels available through Social Media.

The media world has changed dramatically in the last year.  How has your marketing plan changed?  Are you still broadcasting your message through a megaphone, or are you encouraging engagement and a real connection to your customers.  Have you made it easier for customers to contact you if they have a question or problem?  Are you resolving problems online so the public is aware of your efforts?

These are big questions that need to be answered BEFORE allocating any  media dollars.

From Business Spectator – August 6, 2009

“Overall ad spend is likely to dip 7 per cent this year, but for those not in the digital space, the dip is likely to be more in the order of 11 per cent.”

In this video Harold Mitchell talks to Business Spectator’s commentary team: Alan Kohler, Robert Gottliebsen and Stephen Bartholomeusz about ad spending.

Trust in News Media Falls to New Low in Pew Survey.

This headline tells a couple of stories, and illustrates more than just the polarization of America.  It’s  a lesson in how consolidation of media ownership has actually hurt the media business.  This lack of trust isn’t trivial.  I believe this slanting of news causes great challenges to our democracy.

Social Media works because the thoughts of a collective, or a community aren’t typically all wrong.  Misinformation on the social web is typically corrected by others in the group with better, more relevant data.  That collective voice (with a lot of constructive arguments along the way) usually leads us to the truth.  The real truth.  You know; the truth that’s . . . well . . . actually true.  You can read more about this collaborative method of sharing information on the researching with wikipedia page.

According to the NYT article:

“In this year’s survey, 63 percent of respondents said news articles were often inaccurate and only 29 percent said the media generally “get the facts straight” — the worst marks Pew has recorded — compared with 53 percent and 39 percent in 2007.

Seventy-four percent said news organizations favored one side or another in reporting on political and social issues, and the same percentage said the media were often influenced by powerful interests. Those, too, are the worst marks recorded in Pew surveys.”

These findings scare the hell out of me, but they don’t  surprise me at all.

Here’s why they don’t surprise me:

1. In 1987, after an incredible amount of lobbying by the National Association of Broadcasters, large broadcasters and other lobbying groups, The Federal Communications Commission and Congress eliminated the Fairness Doctrine which was enacted by the FCC in 1949, and required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the commissions view) honest equitable and balanced.
2. In 1996, after much lobbying by the National Association of Broadcasters and the biggest broadcast companies, the FCC and Congress did away with rules limiting how many radio and TV stations could be owned by one company.

I will preface my comments with a fact that’s not discussed much anymore and is poo-pood all too often- especially by broadcast licensees and their lobbyists.  That fact?

We, the American people, own the airwaves.

That’s a really important fact so please excuse me as I shout, “WE OWN THE AIRWAVES!!!!!!!”

Before 1987, broadcasters were licensed to serve their communities and operate radio and TV stations in the Public Interest.  These broadcast licenses were not automatically renewed.  In fact, in order to get a new license, or renew a license, licensees had to research their community (seeking input from community leaders and the general public) to ascertain the issues confronting that community in order to provide the FCC with a plan for addressing those community issues in a fair and balanced way.

Since the mid 1980’s, Congress and the FCC have rescinded most of the rules that protected the industry from itself and gave us (the citizens who actually  own the airwaves)  a voice in the license renewal process.

This is an important fact, as today the renewal process demands little more than for the broadcaster to mail a post card to the FCC with a nominal fee.

Instead of granting licenses to serve the public interest, the radio consolidators and their lobbying groups convinced Congress and the FCC to just grant them licenses to print money.  Well, not exactly in those words but that was the subtext of all the lobbying.  And until the recent financial meltdown and the arrival of a plethora of new communication channels (courtesy of the internet and an assortment of mobile devices), that worked out pretty well for the broadcasters.  From 1996 until about two years ago, these big radio and TV groups printed a lot of money.

Radio groups had figured it all out.  Once they had that pesky Fairness Doctrine out-of-the-way and were no longer being forced to offer balanced coverage, they could focus on select, very targeted audience segments.  The audience that would drive the most revenue.

HMMM.  So who would that audience be????

After a careful analysis it was noted that conservative males loved to listen to and talk about their beliefs.  This group also had the most disposable income, making them very desirable to advertisers.  And that was a very comfortable audience for the radio operators, as they (corporate management, station management etc) tend to wealthy, white, conservative and Republican.

The “HOT Talk” format was created to cash in on those who most resembled themselves.

HOT Talk, a totally unbalanced and extremely biased format, was embraced, as calculated, by this wealthy, conservative audience. This led to huge ratings for those stations and major profits for the corporations that owned them.

The proliferation of those stations made big stars out of the likes of Rush Limbaugh who continue to preach directly to their choir.  No balance; just big checks (ka-ching) to the program syndicators and the BIG media companies.  They rant and their followers roll.

TV followed with their news products. Not so much the major networks or their affiliates (I’m not sure why), but the cable networks like FOX NEWS on the right and now MSNBC (on the left – but at least with insightful commentary from conservative Pat Buchanan).

Interestingly, the Pew Study found that:

“Partisan differences in views of Fox News have increased substantially since 2007. Today, a large majority of Republicans view Fox News positively (72%), compared with just 43% of Democrats. In 2007, 73% of Republicans and 61% of Democrats viewed Fox News favorably. Three-quarters (75%) of Democrats assess CNN favorably, while just 44% of Republicans do so, which is little changed from two years ago. MSNBC also rates substantially higher among Democrats (60%) than among Republicans (34%).”

There are many more conservative talk radio stations than there are liberal talk stations. In fact, Air America, the only  liberal radio network (They call it “progressive talk”) had a hard time finding enough audience to succeed.

Why?

I guess Conservatives really like to hear their own opinions  screamed over and over and maybe liberals are busy listening to classic rock??

The average person on the street doesn’t differentiate between a talk show host and a news person.  And when many (not all) listeners/viewers see and hear showmen like Limbaugh, Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and more spread the gospel as though it really was gospel we, as a country, start walking a slippery slope.  This passing off commentary as “the truth” is what has caused trust in the news media to fall.  And now you know why it doesn’t surprise me.

Why does it scare the hell out of me?

When people are exclusively exposed  to views they already embrace, and those beliefs and only those beliefs are reinforced day in and day out with no ready access to a rational and reasonable look at the opposing viewpoint, they begin to feel that everyone in America shares their beliefs and those few who don’t are just “not American”.  At the least they certainly aren’t “good” Americans.

America began as a melting pot.  Remember the words of Emma Lazarous, whose poem “The New Colossus” is engraved on the pedestal on which stands the Statue of Liberty?   Here’s a reminder:

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

America is an amazing place where (historically) people of many nationalities and races came and continue to come together and after a generation or so meld well together as Americans.

Italian Americans, Jewish Americans, Iranian Americans, African Americans, Japanese & Chinese Americans; all Americans.

Generations of early immigrants learned the English language and the American culture from watching Television.  In the 50’s Milton Berle, Danny Thomas, Jack Benny and George Burns taught them to laugh.  In the 60’s they learned about the “American Family” from Ward, June, Wally and Beaver Cleaver, Ozzie and Harriet and Donna Reed.  Children learned manners from a kind and gentle “Captain Kangaroo“.  Subsequent generations learned about bigotry from Archie and Edith Bunker, and real families on shows like Family, and Eight is Enough.

Our public airwaves were used responsibly by broadcasters; certainly to make money – by providing programming that could be embraced by the airwave owners; the American people.

In the early days of broadcasting (and up until the early 1980’s) broadcasters were bound by an unspoken code which was “don’t say anything to the American public that you wouldn’t say to your mother”.  In other words, you can be funny but don’t be crude.  Make a statement, but don’t make it hateful.  Above all else, treat people with respect.  And tell the truth. Especially if you are a news organization.

News reporters were governed by the mantra, “Dig, dig and then dig some more” until you are certain that you are reporting facts.  Facts that can be substantiated. Facts that will hold up under careful scrutiny.  The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

We trusted our news presenters for good reason.  Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Harry Reasoner and their contemporaries were news professionals.  They, and their bosses cared about only one thing.  Credibility.  Because they knew that without credibility, there would be no trust.

When an independent panel found that the illustrious CBS news anchor Dan Rather, his producer Mary Mapes and three top CBS News executives had made misleading statements and “failed miserably” to verify the authenticity of documents presented in a 60 Minutes Story critical of George W. Bush’s service in the Air National Guard less than two months before the 2004 Presidential Election,, Mapes was fired and the three executives quit CBS under pressure.  Rather was removed from the nightly news desk and soon retired from CBS in disgrace.

That’s how important truth, integrity and credibility were (and hopefully still are) to CBS.

The preamble to the United States Constitution reads:  “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

When the FCC and Congress allowed broadcasters to profit by using the public airwaves (our airwaves) to push a popular agenda, and by popular I mean the one that generated the most money for radio and TV station owners, they spit in the eyes of our founding fathers and did great harm to domestic tranquility, the general welfare and the blessings of liberty.

How? By suppressing the opposing viewpoint.  By slanting the truth to suit their own welfare rather than the general welfare.

Those who oppose the return of the Fairness Doctrine and/or any other broadcast industry regulation claim that there is no longer a need for fairness rules because there are now a multitude of information outlets.

The public, they say, has numerous choices of newspapers, magazines, blogs, cable networks, satellite networks, internet video etc.

And to them I say, “If that’s how you feel, you certainly don’t need OUR airwaves to further your agenda”.  Why don’t you connect with your tribe online and leave those worthless radio and TV licenses to someone who will use them in the public interest to offer honest, equitable and balanced coverage of those controversial issues that affect all Americans?

The media giants that were created in 1996 are now suffering from their own short term shrewdness. They decimated a once vibrant source of information that served all Americans.  They worked the system for short term financial rewards.  And the net result?  Americans no longer trust the news media.  How long can a business survive with no trust?

I’ve discussed in previous blogs the fundamental rules of Social Media.  Tell the truth.  Be honest.  Be transparent in everything that you do.  Because growing a community takes trust and there is no trust where there is no truth.

In today’s interconnected web 2.0 world the consumer always finds the truth and that truth leads them to businesses they trust.

Without trust, businesses fail.

Here’s “Fair and Balanced” coverage from Fox News.  What do you think?

This video was posted to You Tube in October, 2004.  The following is a description of the video from its  You Tube video page.

“Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky demolish one of the central tenets of our political culture, the idea of the “liberal media.” Instead, utilizing a systematic model based on massive empirical research, they reveal the manner in which the news media are so subordinated to corporate and conservative interests that their function can only be described as that of “elite propaganda.”