The Media Panel and the Nerds
I just got back from a panel at Stanford. The discussion topic was business/media relations. Before I went down, Robert Hessen asked me if thought it was truly worth the drive from San Francisco. I didn't really have an answer for him then. Post-panel, I'd have to say it was worth it but not for the reasons you might think.
I have always been suspicious of the media. It was ingrained in me early in my career by own experiences and the experiences of my mentors. At the same time, the media in general has been pretty kind to me. I was first published when I was 22 because the editor of a magazine happened to like some of my ideas and decided to let me run with it. At the same time, I've had to deal with media scrutiny which is less pleasant. I was interviewed by a Wall Street Journal reporter under the condition of anonymity. I have to admit that he was very good at his job because he got me to open up far more than I wanted to. He might as well have named me in his article because it was readily apparent who his quotes came from. That caused me quite a bit of drama.
When I lived in NYC, I made friends with Lee Smith-- a prominent journalist. He gave me hope in the profession. Those hopes were again dashed when I realized there were few journalists of Lee's courage and perspicacity. But it never really concerned me because those in my profession mostly tried to avid media. Attention was a bad thing. Craving it was the ultimate sin.
On a side note, that's what makes me so uncomfortable about Myspace and Facebook. They seem to market in a level of self-absorption I'm uncomfortable with. I know that seems disingenuous given that I have my own blog. The only thing I can say in my defense is that I try to be useful here. i don't assume that the minutiae of my life would be interesting to anybody.
So it's an interesting twist of fate that I'm now in a business that almost requires media attention. I have to deal with the one group of people I've spent my entire professional career up to now avoiding. If that's not some sort of cosmic joke, I don't know what it.
What I learned tonight was that I understand media relations far better than I thought I did. I guess all those years of avoiding media attention taught me something of their habit and forma mentis. It was gratifying to see that my conception of media relations was almost exactly the same as the panel. The only difference really was that they were talking about tech.
Another thing really caught my attention. When it was time for questions, only one person was able to frame a cogent question. The rest were a miasma of buzzwords and delusions of grandeur. It's no wonder why so many tech companies fail. They have the same problem as the restaurant business. Promote a waiter to manager and you have a manager who doesn't know how to manage. Same with an engineer I guess. Adult supervision? Maybe. But how about having the right skill set for the job.
Entrepreneur week at Stanford seems to be a pretty cool thing. I'm really glad I went. It's been a while since I've been to a quasi-education lecture. I really enjoyed it.
posted by Kahuna6 at 10:23 PM
2 Comments:
I consider the media the most dishonest element of American power. I had the opportunity in Nov 2006 to spend 5 days in NYC learning from the media. I spent an entire day at each of the NY Times, the AP, the NY Post editorial board, Bloomberg, and lectures by Greg Kelly of Fox News, the BBC world wide news manager, and others, an experience I found to be very enlightening. Our purpose was to understand the news media and how to deal with them when they are attached to us (the military).
The news media, despite their alleged impartiality, has an agenda. They need to tell a story...to sell newspapers, magazines or airtime. They are always looking for something to make their story marketable.
The truth is secondary for most (sensationalism makes money) and primary for a very small few .
In my opinion they are leaches. they are not "doer's", they are "reporter's" and thrive on otehr peoples' actions. They are individuals who are scared to go out an make things happen (and take responsibility for those actions) and are content with criticizing the actions of others with more courage than themselves in order to make an "impact".
3:28 AM
For the most part, I agree with you. But I also see that the media can play a very important role in a free society. The problem is standards. You have people reporting on something they simply do not understand. Part of it I think is the public's voracious appetite for information. Because they constantly want, the media has to provide. As with anything that requires large numbers, the standards are forced to drop. There just aren't that many smart, ethical people. But until they adopt some standards across the board, we will get what we have-- a continuing deterioration.
Personally, I know some really good journalists. My friend Lee is a great example. He was in Beirut during the madness last year. He wrote some great articles about the experience. That's great because I wanted to know what was going on there and I wasn't in a position to go to Beirut. I'm not sure I would have gone even if I could. That kind of makes me a voyeur, suppose. Maybe I don't deserve to know anything if I'm not going to see for myself? I don't know. There are certain epistemological issue inherent in this question. But regardless, I'm glad Lee was there.
The thing is, Lee has done stuff. He understands context. He's bothered to learn Arabic. He's not some kid fresh out of journalism grad school who thinks he has the right to judge. Maybe that's the standard. Maybe you have to spend a few years doing something before you can be a reporter. I think that would vastly improve the quality of the reporting.
10:59 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home