I went to a book reading/ Q & A session with author James Frey recently, which threw up some pretty interesting ideas on the media. Labelled by Time Magazine as ‘America’s Most Notorious Author’, Frey garnered international attention when it was revealed that his published memoir ‘A Million Little Pieces’ contained a number of factual inaccuracies.

An audience member asked Frey what he thought of the very public slamming he got in the US media. The interest was understandable given the nasty backlash he received - it’s not often someone can lay claim to the fact that they got trashed by Oprah. Then again, it’s not often you get someone like Frey, who simply commented that he ‘couldn’t give a f#$k’.

Frey went on to argue that he set out to write ‘a piece of art, a work of literature’ and as such shouldn’t be held to the same standards of factual accuracy as journalists or historians. A fascinating add-on was his comment (and I paraphrase) that the New York Times, which is so revered and regarded as the great purveyor of truth, printed many more lies about him than he ever did about himself.

The underlying premise was that the audience should (and does) expect journalists to stick to the facts, but authors should be afforded a more generous scope for creativity. Whether or not you agree with the latter statement, it was the former that most piqued my interest.

The fact is that most people inherently trust their chosen media sources and assume that what is written is correct. Don’t get me wrong, we may be sceptical when reading about Britney’s latest scandal or Brangelina’s septuplets in the trashy magazines, but I suspect we are somewhat less critical when reviewing the latest banking news in the Fin. While I am certainly not suggesting that the media has morphed into a bunch of bald-faced liars, I do believe that having ‘blind faith’ in the media can be dangerous.

In this day and age where information is so prevalent and accessible, I believe the onus has shifted from the publication to the public - it is our own responsibility to seek different viewpoints and make an informed decision. We can no longer stand up and defend the validity of our viewpoints by saying ‘but I read it in the paper, it must be true!’ Not that a pesky little thing like the truth has ever been known to get in the way of the dedicated soapbox crusader…

- Jacqui Flint

September 26th, 2008  |  by Jacqueline Flint Published in Events, In the News, Public Relations

Is it just me or does anyone else visibly shudder when they see an AWOL apostrophe or poor punctuation?

When I heard the president of the UK Spelling Society recently calling for us to adopt phonetic and SMS speech in everyday language, I did an involuntary body-pop of which Michael Jackson would have been proud.

Maybe he’s stirring the pot to get a reaction and generate publicity, maybe he’s just having a laugh, or maybe I’ve gone to sleep and woken up on April 1? Whatever. It worked.

“Let’s stop worrying if people sometimes spell you as u, your and you’re both as ur, and whose and who’s both as whos,” said Professor John Wells. “People should be able to use whichever spelling they prefer.

“Have we really nothing better to do with our lives than fret about the apostrophe?” he asks.

Well of course we do, but that’s not grounds for making poor grammar and incorrect spelling acceptable. I appreciate that language evolves and we must evolve with it, but surely there’s no need to dumb it down that much.

My personal opinion aside, poor spelling, punctuation and grammar reflect badly on a company, brand or individual. It demonstrates a lack of attention to detail, sloppiness, a lack of care…none of which are positive attributes however you dress them up.

I would rather eat at Bob’s Burgers than Bobs Burgers any day of the week. If a company can be so sloppy as to get something as basic as its name wrong, then it doesn’t bode well for other areas of the business.

A colleague of mine was recently asked to sign a community petition on a subject he feels strongly about, but the preamble to the petition was so badly punctuated and hard to read that he lost the will to live mid-way through. Are we all in such a rush that we can’t pause for breath? Punctuate for heaven’s sake! In this case, it could mean the difference between getting those community signatures.

OK, so I know I’m being pedantic, but I’m not alone. The fact that Lynne Truss’ pro-punctuation bible ‘Eats, Shoots & Leaves’ sold more than three million copies worldwide and topped the New York Times’ Bestseller list is testament to that. There are millions of people shuddering (or in extreme cases body-popping) with me.

Professor Wells’ argument is also flawed in that it doesn’t take different accents into consideration. Approximately 341 million people speak English as a native language and a further 267 million speak it as a second language in more than 104 countries. Quite how we’re supposed to adopt a uniform phonetic language is anyone’s guess.

On the bright side, having walked past the same laksa house for the past few weeks and shuddering at the lack of apostrophe in its name, I was heartened this morning to see that somebody had placed a strategic chopstick where the apostrophe ought to be.

Top marks for effort. I know where I’ll be eating lunch today.

- Carolyn Gallagher

September 17th, 2008  |  by Carolyn Gallagher Published in Publicity

I have a few favourite blogs that I check from time to time, one of these being social network strategist Laurel Papworth’s. I checked Laurel’s blog just yesterday, and was immediately drawn to a recent post showing images of Uluru, plastered with advertising boards. An hour later I opened the Sydney Morning Herald to page three, and there in front of me was a news article … based on Laurel’s post.

This isn’t the first time I’ve noticed ‘news’ being drawn from online content. The interactive nature of the online medium means reader interest and opinion can be more easily gauged, resulting in the increasing frequency of ‘news’ being sourced online.

Anyone who’s viewed the ‘Christian the Lion’ footage (which to date has received around 40,000,000 views world-wide on youtube alone) would have also watched the 30-year old story become a news hit. Following uncontrollable sharing of the footage and undeniable public interest, it suddenly became ‘news’ and has been picked up by talk shows, news programs and newspapers around the world. Most recently, Sony Pictures have started negotiations to turn the story into a movie.

Then there’s ‘Trent from Punchbowl’ – an interview with a foul-mouthed, drug addicted ‘low-life’ found at Punchbowl train station. Various versions of ‘Trent from Punchy’ received more than 1,400,000 views on youtube – that’s 82 times more people than the population of Punchbowl. Various forums, an official website, youtube posts, responses and online discussions led Trent to appear in the Daily Telegraph online. The news angle - is Trent real, bloggers are divided.

In today’s changing media landscape, there is no doubt online information sharing is impacting on what we see and hear in more traditional news mediums – not to mention how long it lasts. Online news stories on the Hungry Jacks Stacker generated hundreds of online responses over two days, and meant a story that should have lasted a day, stuck around for a week. And by the way, the story first appeared in blogs several days earlier.

The value of online cannot be discounted as it continues to grow as a source of entertainment, interest, and news – even for journalists.

- Kara Jecks

September 10th, 2008  |  by Kara Jecks Published in In the News, Online, Public Relations

A tiny blurb in the Daily Telegraph a few weeks ago confirmed that the urban myth ‘six degrees of separation’ is almost statistically spot on. Microsoft analysts determined that 6.6 relationships linked every person on this planet.

I am actually linked to more than 30 million people, but not through an individual, but an animal. His name is Christian. Have you met my lion friend?

I have watched the YouTube video about a dozen times and told at least twice that many people. Everyone I know has done the same. Everyone one I know has reacted the same. The collective experience of the YouTube community seems to heighten our emotional response.

I wonder if this is what Marshall McLuhan imagined when he proclaimed ‘the medium is the message’ way back in 1964?

Is our reaction so visceral because we are participating in a global groundswell? Would I have taken such possession of Christian if I could not have shared him with everyone in my office in an instant? Probably not.

If I had seen him on TV, I would have almost certainly forgotten about it by the next day. And a photo in a newspaper, may only rate a mention if I was sitting beside a friend at the time.

In any case, it has taken an animal set wild in our vast Internet neighbourhood to remind me that most of us enjoy sharing a bit of happy human emotion – at least with 6.6 people.

- Christine Gotz

September 3rd, 2008  |  by Christine Gotz Published in In the News, Online, Public Relations