Is It Any Wonder that FEMA Was Confused Over Who Gets to Play the Part of the Reporter??

OK, so has anyone by now NOT read of the news conference held last week by FEMA featuring FEMA employees pretending to be journalists?

 

The Bush Administration has certainly had its share of questionable judgements when it comes to news management.  Until now, the benchmark for "on second thought, perhaps we shouldn't have done that" moments was the now infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech/photo op by President Bush aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln in May, 2003 (Try googling those two words and see what you get).

 

In defense of the poor PR-eaucrats @ FEMA, an argument could be made that the rules are not quite as clear as they may have been in the past.

 

Before addressing that, however, I need to make a confession, in the interest of full disclosure.

 

Back in the early 1980s, during my first tour of duty in PR consulting (and when I was quite low on the food chain), my firm was organizing a news conference on behalf of a client.  Who that client was, and what the issue was, I have no recollection.  But because the news conference was scheduled for the morning, and because there was lots of competition on the AP Daybook that day, we were quite concerned about media attendance.  So I called a friend of my who happened to be both a freelance photographer and an AP stringer, and "hired" him to attend the news conference as a photojournalist.  He took some pictures, and actually got one of the photos of the AP wire.  He did not ask any questions.  So I don't want anyone accusing me of throwing stones in a glass house.

 

Now, back to the topic at hand.

 

I think we all agree that FEMA crossed the line here.  Did they NOT think that someone was going to call them on this ruse? 

 

While I do not for a moment condone the tactic (A friend of mine has a saying for such boneheaded behavior -- "it's like waking up in the morning and having a big bowl of stupid for breakfast."), and it is hard to imagine how anyone could have thought it was acceptable, nevertheless the episode does serve as a warning that we need be a bit more alert to the growing confusion over the definition of legitimate journalism.

 

With the number of blogs growing faster than bacteria in a petri dish under a warm light, everyone gets to play the role of "journalist" these days.  This burgeoning legion of citizen-journalists is causing a rapid erosion of the previously understood rules for what constitutes "legitimate" or professional journalism.  And while accountability has always been fuzzy in the fourth estate, it is becoming fuzzier still.

 

Even the mainstream media -- who we would expect to be the most stalwart of defenders of the institution and all its rules and traditions -- are compounding the problem.  Today there is a myriad of newspapers, radio and television outlets that invite readers/listeners/viewers to play the role of journalist.

 

So much for professionals standards.

 

I know an argument could be made that this growing citizen-journalist trend is simply a response to a growing dissatisfaction with the mainstream media.

 

I'm not convinced, though, that the "cure" is any better than the symptom.

 

To steal from my prior blog entry, does this serve the public interest?

 

What's next?  Citizen-lawyers?  Citizen-accountants?  Citizen-doctors? 

 

Published 29 October 2007 21:02 by Chris Gidez

Filed under: Crisis Communications, citizen journalism, FEMA

Comments

• 

  Brendan Hodgson said:

  Chris, an interesting post, but it begs the question as to whether FEMA (or any organization involved in a crisis for that matter) - were it fully transparent in its approach (as FEMA was not), and avoided any misguided questioning (as FEMA did not) - could have undertaken such an exercise under the premise that it needed to get information to stakeholders regardless of whether media could be available to serve as a conduit of that data?

  Ultimately, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that, while the traditional media remains a vital conduit of information given their reach and "third-party" standing, an organization has every right to disseminate information - directly and unfiltered - regardless of where the issue stands within the course of the traditional media cycle - so long as they're transparent and avoid any credibility pitfalls. In other words, companies who are adept at using video and blogs may no longer need to work within the confines established by traditional media, rather the opposite (notwithstanding that it will still be vital to cooperate and share with media as appropriately as possible).

  I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.

  November 5, 2007 17:24