Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Media Literacy’ Category

Creating conditions for communication success can be discouraging. First, you must have your audience’s attention, and convince them you understand their needs. They must also be willing to receive your information. Then, you must have a simple message with no more than 3 to 5 points. Next, you must offer examples with which your audience can relate. Now, you must send your message using your audience’s media of choice… and then obtain their feedback. The most direct and interactive media are best because you must reply by responding to what has been misunderstood. And then an ongoing dialogue must begin to establish a receptive relationship.

So is it even possible to achieve foreign policy understanding with countless audiences inside many nations, especially when each has its’ own agenda? In such a world, is it necessary to have separate messages for each nation, and audience? Is it possible to know individual media preferences in remote places? And how can brand identity be maintained while responding daily to 24/7 “breaking news?”

And finally, with so many departments of government, NGO’s, think-tanks, and associations sending messages around the world every day, is coordination even possible?

Sharing a uniform “idea of America” statement and format for releasing daily news statements with all these entities, might be a place to start. And having enough interactive media specialists around the world to communicate with each priority audience is another critical step. And even then, maybe only a small measure of understanding may be achievable.

But some clarity is better than none. is it not? Otherwise, all we do is continue to contribute to clutter and confusion.

Read Full Post »

No communication medium ever totally disappears. When a new medium becomes dominant, the roles of the others change.  So in this day of new and social media, what is happening to print?

Over the past ten years the challenge for institutions has been to determine which new media are most effective, and what are the implications for continued large investments in print publications. Truthfully, there is little reliable data on social media effectiveness, mostly because use patterns appear to be changing every day. And there are also different use patterns for each audience.

Nonetheless, there are some generalizations we can make that might be useful:

1. With regard to digital technology, searching websites is clearly a preferred method for finding detailed information, and social media can be extremely effective in motivating widespread response.

2. With regard to print, publications are still effective as tangible symbols of institutional commitments… tangible because constituents can feel a visceral connection by holding them in their hands, and they can then display them on their coffee tables and elsewhere as a way to let others know the pride they feel in that connection.

For example, in the university world (or even corporate world), a colorful general brochure can still be an important tangible connection with, and commitment to, an institution. In this new media environment, however, what has changed is that a brochure’s art and design is almost more important  than its’ content. This is because compelling photography or illustration can stand in “virtual” place of the institution itself, and text now is best used to “drive” readers (or brochure “skimmers”) to the website for more in-depth information.

In addition, in our new media world a magazine can also serve as a regularly appearing tangible symbol of an audience’s identification with an organization. Cut-lines allow readers to skim content, and well-designed and illustrated covers reinforce the brand. And so, just as the four-color general brochure,  displaying that magazine becomes an additional continuing source of personal pride.

Generalizations certainly can be misleading. But my experience these days suggests that while print rarely can take a lead role in communicating institutions, it still functions as a powerful symbolic identity reinforcement for many people.

 

 

Read Full Post »

In a new technology driven and rapidly changing world, it is impossible to be certain about what various segments of the public actually know about extremely complicated world events. Each medium has its’ strengths and weaknesses, and each has different changing patterns of use.

Newspapers are effective when it comes to providing both context and today’s developments. But readership is declining in the U.S. and elsewhere, and literacy is a problem in many parts of the developing world.

Television favors fast paced dramatic images over details and context. Some outlets such as PBS and NPR provide more context than others, but those generally reach fewer people. When television became dominate in the 1960’s, the matter of emotional appeal vs. rational analysis became an increasing matter of concern.

Social media is even more difficult to analyze because its’ use patterns seem to be changing daily. This is not unusual in the history of media.  The new “big things” in media typically becomes fads for a while, and then overtime uses change as people learn about strengths and weaknesses. For example, recent reports about Facebook usage may be suggesting that it’s better for staying in touch with family and friends than it is for handling serious matters. And while some still try to convey serious ideas using Twitter, others are finding that constant following and tweeting is just taking too much time. Twitter clearly is an effective tool for mobilizing people, but many have come to think it’s very weak at providing context for understanding and following the developments of complex events.

All of this seems to reinforce a need for greater “media” literacy among media consumers, including a willingness to seek out various sources of information, and to take personal responsibility for separating fact from fiction.

Read Full Post »

When television was clearly the dominant medium, a revolutionary group generally declared victory by taking over the main television station. In this age of 24/7 cable and social media, however, the situation is far more complex.

For example, in the Middle East there still are literally hundreds of newspapers, magazines and journals. Foreign newspapers also maintain bureaus. So print clearly is still an influencing factor, especially locally. Adding satellite communication and digital media to the mix is changing the game, but the change is not yet complete. How you receive news in Cairo is therefore likely to be quite different from how you receive it in the U.S. It’s content and tone are going to be different as well.

In addition to many news publications, in “Arab spring” countries there are also government-owned and privately owned television organizations. There are countless foreign networks and press services, including  CNN, BBC, Associated Press (AP), Independent Television News (ITN), Reuters, Agence France, Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, and more. Freelancers also cover these hot spots and sell reports to local and foreign outlets, many of which are in the U.S. Most western-based media organizations are facing budget cuts and have fewer reporters in the field. Therefore, the landscape, and the nature and quality of coverage, is constantly changing.

For example, the major U.S. television networks and newspapers have reduced the number of their news bureau locations around the world, and so their coverage is mostly provided by a very few constantly traveling correspondents, independent news services, or freelancers. Thus, the remaining  correspondents all tend to rush to the current hot spot (often referred to as “herding”), leaving many cities and entire regions of the world largely unreported.

Internet access varies, although we sometimes think everyone has it. For example, I am told that in Egypt only 21 percent of the population has access and that the actual literacy level of the population at large is quite low. So the reach and impact of websites, bloggers, and social media still remains a bit unclear. It therefore is assumed that Twitter and Facebook are used by smaller groups to stimulate on-the-street word-of-mouth, which in turn brings about demonstrations. In the final analysis, it seems word-of-mouth still remains the most effective medium, no matter how it is generated.

Fundamental questions become those of the “chicken and egg” variety: Does unrest due to unemployment, poverty, or government corruption inform media reporting, or does overly aggressive reporting bring about unrest? And once demonstrations begin, does television coverage primarily  inform, or primarily over-dramatize? My analysis suggests that each unrest situation is different.  Sometimes unrest comes first. Other times, it is media reporting.

Remaining questions for the news consumer: Do media organizations exercise adequate social responsiblity? Does competition for audience too often cause them to over dramatize? Can media become inappropriate participants in complex situations? What is the consumer’s role and responsibility?

Read Full Post »

Cutting through information clutter is the communication challenge of the new media age. In our  thoroughly saturated world, the more we see reports about changing and escalating events, the more confused we can become. Just when we thought we were beginning to understand, we get overwhelmed  and confused all over again.

A case in point is the 24/7 coverage of major conflicts. With non-stop reporting, new developments are always followed with rapid-fire, and often premature, efforts to interpret them. Relentless  determination to hold attention produces constant declarations of “breaking news!” Anchors end up over-dramatizing everything just to keep viewers from tuning away.

What’s even more troubling is that a breaking news-driven media can actually become a complicating factor in the event itself. They can become more of a player than observer. For example, when does a constant  presence of cameras draw diplomats and policy-makers into even deeper conflict? Can incessant stirrings of emotions make television drama out of serious situations that should require more thoughtful problem-solving and compromise? Would the public’s need to know be better served by reporting developments at appropriate intervals, and by providing more background and context?

This week’s focus on Ukraine is a good example. What do we really know from minute-by-minute 24/7 cable news that we would not know from periodic updates?  Has all the drama contributed to solving the problem, or is it just adding needless emotion to an already hostile situation? Does airing the rants of polarized politicians in the middle of such complex events serve any useful purpose?

How, then, do we more thoughtfully go about cutting through all this information clutter? When it’s all said and done, will it necessarily fall to educators and schools to explain the extent to which the digital media revolution is changing everything?

Read Full Post »

A large group of students and faculty in TCU’s Bob Schieffer College of Communication gathered this week to hear Bob Schieffer talk about the consequences of the communication revolution. One of his major themes was that in this world of 24/7 cable, blogs, and social media, it’s possible to surround yourself with information based only on your own personal biases. And what’s frightening is that it’s possible to do that without realizing what you are doing. Schieffer’s point simply was that if you don’t take the initiative to hear the other side, you are not getting the all the essential facts.

In my work over the years, I have found that selective processes work in many ways in many situations. For example, institutional executives often become insulated because they get their information solely from people in their inner circle. These people tell executives, and even lower level managers, pretty much only what they want them to hear, or what they think the “bosses” expect to hear. Often it is not the whole story.

We tend to create information “bubbles” around us, and then think we are fully informed. Bob Schieffer’s message essentially was that in today’s information-saturated world, each of us must become our own editor. We must seek out various sources of information, ask whether or not the information is one-sided (or even true), and then act cautiously on the information we come to trust over time.

I continually ask my students if they think we should be teaching “media literacy” as  a subject of study in schools?  Should there be an entire course on understanding how media changes the way things work, and how to become your own editor?  Should it be required?  At what grade level should it be offered? How about offering such a course open to everyone at the university level?

Last week I argued in this blog that the internationalization of higher education has the potential to develop truly global leaders and citizens, enhance cross-cultural understanding, and solve world problems. This week I add: Should becoming an intelligent and skilled editor of confusing and contradictory information be a requirement for a truly global education?

Read Full Post »

My interests have evolved over the years.  As a young radio and television producer, and soon-to-become professor, I focused my thinking on understanding media. Soon, however, I shifted to helping organizations communicate more effectively, and eventually found myself focusing on universities. This challenge led me to bringing the subject matters of marketing and group process into the strategic communication field… and eventually writing about it as one of the early pioneers of “integrated marketing.”

Currently I am intrigued with rethinking the psychic and social consequences of media, and the implications for advancing institutions. I am also especially interested in how communication technology and the globalization of higher education are coming together with compelling new future problem-solving possibilities.  These range from developing truly international leaders and citizens, to addressing cross cultural conflicts, to using research and topic experts to help solve serious global problems, to responding to concerns about higher education’s continuing relevance as it currently is configured.

Beginning today I will focus more of my posts on the future of higher education as it evolves into a truly global industry. Delivery formats, international communication, digital technology, and even foreign policy, will not escape examination. For all of these will have to converge and change if we are to shape a better world  for tomorrow.

Read Full Post »

This is the 50th anniversary of the assassination of JFK. Those of us alive at the time are once again recalling where we were when we heard the news.

I was sitting in a communication class at American University in Washington, DC. The door opened and a person stood there stunned, and then managed to simply say, “the president has been shot!” My classmates and I sat motionless in total silence.  No one, not even our professor, said a word. In a few minutes, one by one we stood up and passed quietly from the room. I walked solemnly out into the fall morning and wandered aimlessly around the campus bewildered about what might be the future of our country, and frightened about what unknown course my life could now take.

In an instant, the world had changed.  Internal unrest and racial divide would eventually shake up our society. The Vietnam war would continue to divide us. And admiring perceptions of this United States of America around the world would never be the same again. The now dominant  medium of television would seize the moment and literally come into its’ own during the next four days. The entire world was glued to a screen, and the power of imagery was inescapably experienced by all of us… all “live” on television in “real time!”

From the very beginning, those of us studying television were asking the question: “Will television eventually bring about a global village of common understanding, or will it magnify our differences?” The Kennedy assassination managed to muddy the waters. In some ways we were one community, and in other ways we were driven apart. In the final analysis, the lesson learned was that the age of imagery, and eventually the age of digital interactive media, was making things far more complex, bewildering, and potentially explosive, than ever before.

Television was enhancing our emotional experience of critical events. I know from trying to produce programs myself, that television “liked” conveying feelings and drama and did not like details. The more emotion, the more the public became glued to the screen. The more information and details, the more likely the public would tune away. What was happening before our very eyes, was the realization that the addictive power of television could be making the world more emotional, and the consequence of the decline of print could be the decline of logic and reason in the world.  Heightened emotions can have community formation benefits. But they also can fuel discontent and polarization.

The years since the assassination have been a time of continuous communication revolution. And what has become clear to this communication professor is that the way virtually everything works changes with each new dominant medium.  Family interactions change. Individual behaviors and beliefs change. Elections change, along with what it takes to win. Government functions and perceptions  change. And even religions and denominations change. There indeed is some truth to the “we are what we eat” theory of communication!

Today we are a global village in mourning over a great leader. Our many thoughts include what might have been. But tomorrow we still will face the complexities and contradictions of how communication media can establish communities one day… and then the next day tear them apart.

Read Full Post »

Multi-platform tactics, which include live events, significantly enhance communication effectiveness. Multi-platform education tactics which include live human interaction, similarly enrich the education experience and improve learning outcomes.

Nevertheless, the idea that Massive Open Online Courses (called MOOC’s) could take the place of traditional education is dominating the buzz in higher education today.

It is true that many MOOC’s feature the best teachers at the best schools teaching online, and are open free of charge to anyone in the world. My 47 years in higher education, however, suggest that the potential of MOOC’s will be debated for a while, and then settle in to, (1) provide a service that will address the realistic needs of nontraditional students, and (2) will then concentrate on bringing significant learning enhancements to traditional students. They will be a game-changer to be sure, but not a format replacement. 

I think the future for the traditional college student will look more like this: Class discussion, student web searches, live guests, Skype engaged experts, topic videos, on-line web connections, electronic books, and MOOC’s, will combine to vastly improve learning.

For students with work and family obligations MOOC’s will certainly meet legitimate convenience needs. And they no doubt will find new digital ways to engage students more interactively. But in the end, however, I firmly believe that multi tactics media, mixed with live face-to-face interaction, will produce the best outcomes.

In fact, spending time in the “left bank” literary, artistic and academic neighborhoods of Paris, and a study tour week in Venice, is currently providing me an incredible opportunity to reflect on why the undeniable benefits of actually “being there” must be preserved in this dramatically changing world of education. But more about all this next week!

Read Full Post »

In today’s 24/7 cable and social media dominated journalism, what establishes  credibility?  Is it production and performance value?  Is it arrogantly articulated  opinion?  Is it factual reporting?

It seems to me that many news producers today think that fast talking, stern sounding  anchors and reporters are the key to holding interest and preventing viewers from tuning away. And fast paced anchoring has led to abruptly interrupting expert guests, all in order to keep the program moving faster and faster.

My television interview coaches told me that my job was to focus audience attention on my guests… and not to constantly interrupt them. They argued that my credibility  was mostly established by asking the right basic questions, and then giving the guest a fair chance to fully answer those questions.

In addition, emphasis on speed leads to reporting events too quickly. And when initial reports prove wrong it’s now acceptable practice to get the story out first and correct it later. In the end, is this good modern journalism, or sloppy reporting?

When speed and entertainment become dominant objectives, attention shifts to grooming celebrity anchors and reporters. Increasing emphasis on the dramatic is the result, which leads to pitting glib guests with contrasting agendas against each other rather than having civilized conversations with subject matter experts.

As a strategic communication practitioner I often experienced celebrity reporters using the best of what I said as their introductory comments, and then showing me in a very short edited video clip selected out-of-context.

So in this new media world will anything restore news credibility? I submit that it will require a predominance of experienced anchors and reporters taking the time to sound and look authoritative at less than warp speed, selecting their interviewees based on established expertise. And oh yes, they will also let these highly qualified guests fully answer their carefully crafted questions.

Happily, I am noticing that many fast-talking anchors today are turning over quickly.  They are young and attractive, but under too much pressure to look like experts far too soon. And even if this emphasis on drama and style worked for a while, has it really served the public interest, or has it merely put the interests of the organization first… frustrating the public more and more each day?

Many of us are now observing that social media is beginning to take on a much more balanced perspective in our lives. If this is so, isn’t it time for 24/7 news to follow?

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »