Larry D. Lauer

The speed and need of 24/7 cable for constant breaking news, the tendency of television to dramatize, the rapid growth of social media, the financial troubles of newspapers, and overall austerity cutbacks all over the world, collectively have changed the landscape of international news gathering and reporting. The fundamental question is: Are we getting the information we need to function as intelligent citizens?

In the past, large Newspapers maintained bureaus in many places all over the world. But recently many have been closing them.  Mainstream broadcast news organizations have done so as well.  For example, CBS had a number of bureaus strategically placed in cities around the world. Now it covers international events completely from its bureau in London. All news organizations today rely to some extent on freelancers, and local journalists, who compete for space and airtime in order to get paid.  As a result, traditional outlets also depend more than ever on three basic international news services.

Associated Press (AP) still covers the world, and also has an international video news service.  Reuters has traditionally been strong in business coverage, and continues to provide international coverage. And Agence France-Presse (AFP) does as well. All of these services work on some kind of fee basis and provide news coverage for both television and newspapers. But with each individual news outlet reducing its fulltime international reporting staff, it has become more difficult to achieve distinction.  

In addition, many new networks have appeared all over the world. For example, Al Jazeera covers the Arab world with both an English and Arabic channel, which are managed separately. The english channel boasts objectivity in its coverage, with its selection of stories based on the interests of its audiences. The Arabic channel is more Arab centric and has a reputation for being critical of Western and US influences. Al Arabiya broadcasts only in Arabic, but has an English website.  It prides itself in its objectivity.  But there are many other channels in the Middle East and all over the world that compete for audience, and specialize in everything from news to music to religion.  CNN has both domestic and international networks,and may have the most bureaus and reporters around the world.  But many see a self-serving commercial spin to their tone and style, and see this tone also as a form of bias. All of these news organizations have websites, and now refer readers, listeners, and viewers to them for more information.

Governments too are in the business of news.  Most brag of objectivity, but clearly reflect cultural biases and varied definitions of what it means to be democratic. The BBC World Service in the United Kingdom prides itself in its objectivity, but has been accused by conservatives as being too liberal.   The Voice of America (VOA) strives for news objectivity, but many in other parts of the world say its Western perspective is indeed a bias.  In Russia the media is controlled by a more authoritarian government, but that government wants to argue that it’s democratic and fair. China is launching new initiatives in targeted parts of the world, including the US. It admits that it hopes to achieve a better public understanding of its culture, but it also asserts that its policy is to be objective in reporting the news. The fact is, there are competing international newspapers and media networks all over the world, with most asserting that they are objective. But they clearly exist to advance a better understanding of their cultures and perspectives.

Add social media, and the situation becomes even more complicated. Citizens not only talk across borders, but they actually can file stories from cell phones. News organizations are now soliciting social media responses and posting  some of it as news, including video from cell phones.   How can consumers in this kind of situation know what they are getting?  Is it factual?  Is it exaggerated? Is it substantive enough to understand?

Indeed the speed of the media world today tends to short-cut all stories, including the important ones. The intensity of breaking news competition often results in reporting errors that have to be corrected later.  With fewer bureaus, every reporter flocks to where news is breaking, leaving the rest of the world virtually uncovered for long periods of time. Enhancing dramatic values is competitively enticing, so using the camera to make small crowds look large, and editing to make events more exciting, becomes common place. So with this daily barrage of information, do we ever really come to know what actually happened, or understand the context necessary for really understanding the situation?

The adventure in media ideas I am currently sharing with honors students at TCU is dealing with these very complex issues. In the end, the challenge will be to find a way to make sure every citizen understands how media actually work, and how to become fully and accurately informed on their own.

Read Full Post »

Most of the government, education, and business leaders I meet think The Economist is the most influential news magazine in the world. And when examined closely, it turns out to be a great example of how the editors of a primarily print publication are using new technology to make certain they are prepared for inevitable changes in media consumer behavior. And instead of contributing to information clutter, they see it as an opportunity to each week cut through that clutter with a concise, well-organized, look at the entire globe.

To be certain we are currently in the midst of a digital revolution and no one can be certain just how and when it will end. The Economist is a weekly publication, and so each Monday morning the editors gather to plan the content for the following week. Reporters send stories for consideration from all over the world, and by Wednesday the magazine’s many components are coming together.  It is then printed in many international locations, circulated there, and therefore can be in most subscriber’s homes each Monday.

But the magazine is also offered in an i-Pad version which can function as a total magazine substitute. Social media are also used to let subscribers know what is happening more immediately, and the Website is managed so as to stay on top of late breaking news.  And so The Economist is gaining experience in all media and stands ready to adjust to trends as they unfold.  The thinking is that the tablet format, containing almost the entire publication, is likely to be the future. So the business plan is to keep the subscription price the same in all platforms and allow subscribing to all of them by paying a small premium.  In other words, unlike many other publications, the editors intend to charge the same for their content no matter how you get it.

Interestingly enough they also have a new feature print magazine designed to be a cultural lifestyle publication, but there is an i-Pad app for it.  They also have an economic and trade data service  for businesses. And they produce conferences and seminars on hot topics with star participants from business, government and media. All of this is very high quality and aimed at diversifying revenue sources. In this way, financial security is maintained while media roles and consumer behaviors change.

In summary, The Economist’s editors see each medium they use, along with the fact that they cover the entire world each week, as opportunities to concisely cut through information clutter and give a more organized and focused report on what actually happened around the world. And they are betting on media diversity… combining digital media, print, data services, live events, and more… to protect their competitive advantage in the midst of still another uncertain media revolution.

Read Full Post »

Diplomacy is generally understood to be governments communicating with governments. It is primarily practiced through embassies and consulates around the world, and involves foreign service officers and ambassadors advancing their governments’ foreign policy objectives while collecting and researching essential political and economic information. Some governments argue they also practice “public” diplomacy. 

Public diplomacy generally takes two forms:  The first form is governments communicating directly with the publics of other nations. It is practiced through cultural and educational exchanges, as well as by providing local libraries, information centers, and educational programming.  It is also managed for the most part through embassies and consulates. Government sponsored international broadcasts (i.e. Voice of America, and BBC World Service) and other forms of mass media can also be seen as public diplomacy. And government sponosred public diplomacy is also usually driven mostly by foreign policy objectives.  

The second form of public diplomacy is direct people-to-people communication. At one time the United States had a government agency called the US Information Agency, or USIA. It was separate from the state department so many people  believe that this “independence” allowed it to practice this more direct form of people-to-people public diplomacy. But the function and funding of the USIA were significantly reduced during the Clinton administration, and then its functions were moved into the Department of State. Today this more direct form of public diplomacy is practiced mostly by nonprofit organizations such at Sister Cities International, and other similar NGO’s. A business plan for a new independent organization was recently developed during a project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, and it will be interesting so see what happens next. Its champions are currently seeking start-up funding.

The practice of these forms of diplomacy and public diplomacy have been influenced by the same media revolution forces as all institutions and governments.  All have, or are developing, sophisticated websites, and have staff managing various forms of electronic newsletters, apps, and social media. For example, the state department has initiated several projects involving mobilizing youth to use social media to connect with youth in other parts of the world. And the  business plan of the proposed new organization referenced above outlines rather ambitious uses of various forms of media, from television programs to mobilizing university groups to help tell America’s story. Many of us in higher education also believe that international education is a very effective form of public diplomacy, bringing people together across cultures to achieve common understanding without a political agenda.

So far our study of media revolutions as a part of a TCU Honors College colloquium is indicating that while all international organizations are utilizing new media, the most compelling international media issue just might be the role and effectiveness of social media across cultures, and most especially across the closed borders of authoritarian regimes.  As we probe this question with visiting experts and guests, and as I interview colleagues, it seems that the real power of social media so far is in its ability to mobilize groups to action, and to set issue agendas.   However, the limitations of social media seem to be that they do not handle deeper substance well, and therefore are not effective in actual problem-solving.  For this, the use of “old’ media such as comprehensive reports, and most especially face-to-face meetings with conflict resolution objectives, are still required!

We will continue to explore this topic as we move forward with  future class sessions and interviews. But once again we are finding that while media roles change when new media appear, the old ones never disappear. Stay tuned for more thoughts and insights as we continue our adventure in media ideas.

Read Full Post »

What is a ‘NGO?”  Since the term is not used consistently, providing a definition is challenging. Nonetheless, they are generally organizations that operate apart from government and are motivated by a social or human problem-solving cause. They almost always operate  internationally and yet are not overtly political. They almost always are supported by voluntary contributions and are in some way legally constituted. However, not all of them are  recognized in the US as legal “non-profits,” which have a more precise definition and an official tax-exempt status.

There are NGO’s that work in disaster relief, public health services, conservation, education, institution building, construction, social services, and much more. The United Nations supports many of their efforts, and actually might have originated the term.

There does not seem to be an accurate count of the number of NGO’s but most would agree that they number in the thousands. Many work in the most difficult countries under the most demanding conditions. And each country can present an entirely different set of communication challenges.  Many developing countries today have some level of media infrastructure and a working press. But many others have neither of these.  Some are in the midst of revolution and ongoing violence, while others are rural, mountainous and virtually inaccessible.  Nevertheless, there are almost always some NGO’s operating in every corner of the world.

The basic questions today for students of international communication are:  How have the operations of these cause-based organizations around the world been changed by the new digital and social media revolution?  Where do traditional media still dominate, and how? And just what is the specific situation in my countries of interest.

In the clutter of today’s information environment the importance of NGO’s often goes unrecognized. Yet there is no doubt they are a major force in the world. Everywhere we turn they are fully engaged in international problem-solving and are often actually leading the way in uses of digital media technology. Therefore, every student of communication will do well to study what these organizations are doing and how they are using new technology in some of the most  challenging situations.          

More international communication/media at:         www.icahdq.org         www.comminit.com

Read Full Post »

One of the lessons of communication history is that media never completely disappear. How they are used, however,  is likely to change when more dominant media appear, or when using them over time clarifies their weaknesses and strengths. 

Since I have been leading a course about media revolutions at TCU I have been asking colleagues and students if their use of social media has changed since they first began using it. I have been especially interested in probing specifically how they have been using it, as well as what else they have been doing with their time.  What I have been hearing has been somewhat surprising.

The impression one can have from the countless individuals and organizations that tout using Facebook, consult LinkedIn, and tweet all day long is that the entire world now runs on social media. Using it is the only way to get anything accomplished, or so it seems.  But I have been hearing many colleagues, and even some students, say their use is now more clearly defined in their mind. They tell me they are using it primarily for social purposes, and not for more serious ones. The sensation of easily cultivating on-line relationships and feeling connected is its primary attraction, and that is what also can become an addiction for some. 

One colleague commented that he thought social media would continue to be important only for those who desire a large percentage of their time to be spent socially. He did think, however, that use will remain substantial enough for social media advertising to become increasingly more effective.

When I asked a visiting media expert if he tweets, he said, “not any more.” When I asked why, he said, “the novelty wore off.”  When I explored this with others I heard some say that they just didn’t have the time any longer to keep up with it.  They were seriously engaged professionals who didn’t think they had the time for continued and constant interaction with a mostly social medium.

Many explained that Facebook is great for having fun but it has serious limitations for doing substantive business.  Some also suggested that Twitter is too trivial for serious communication and consumes too much of an individual’s time. Some say it can make you better known initially but its effectiveness declines when communication needs  become more serious. Some just put social media in the category of a fad. They suggest it will continue to be a pastime for some but for others it will gradually become less fulfilling.

When LinkedIn was new it promised to be a gathering point for professional people with common interests.  Many now report that they are getting too many requests from people they don’t know, and so they now have no idea how to use it effectively to cull out talent. Apparently many companies still use it to review pools of people in specific job categories, but some tell me the larger the pool the more difficult it is to sort out the lists usefully. 

When it comes to international situations, however, many point out that Twitter has proven to have an incredible  ability to cross borders, especially those of closed societies.  And even in the US, it has been a powerful tool that can quickly assemble like-minded people, sometimes for demonstrations and protests and other times for parties and celebrations.  Indeed, entire countries and their government agencies are now exploring the potential of social media for this very reason. They have found it to be an efficient tool for building virtual relationships and connecting sympathetically with people in foreign cultures. In these cases its simple and social strengths advance a more serious and substantive cause.

All of this is anecdotal at this point. But as I explore the actual use of social media with colleagues and students it seems that its role is already changing for many of us. To be sure, social media will not go away. But as we use it more and more we may merely be confirming that it is indeed mostly social. We may also be confirming that this is both its limitation when it consumes too much of our time, and its strength when we use it purposefully.

Read Full Post »