Hill+Knowlton Strategies

So it would appear that the so-called “experts” don’t always live up to their name. In his recent New York Times column, Nicholas Kristof ponders the growing evidence that expertise is, in his words, over-rated. His proof: a study by University of California Professor Philip Tetlock which found that the predictions of experts were “on average, only a tiny bit better than random guesses – the equivalent of a chimpanzee throwing darts at a board.” Worse, as Kristof notes, the least accurate experts were often the most famous (he blames the media).

From a communications perspective, however, the more interesting finding presented by Kristof was one which found that when a president takes to the airwaves to pitch his case the public opinion meter barely registers. But when the “experts” make the same case, they are able to move public opinion by more than three percentage points, because (says Kristof) “they seem to be reliable or impartial authorities“.

Indeed, this point only reinforces one of the key tenets of public relations – that being the importance of securing respected, third-party endorsement of your product, position, or policy – meaning, it’s better to have others speak well about you than you speaking well about you.

So who cares if they get it right or not? Certainly, in the past, it was much more difficult to track the records of the pundits and prognosticators. In this world of digital permanence, however, the “market for ideas” as Kristof calls it, is far more transparent. Pundits can no longer simply hold up their successes and bury their failures. Kristof calls for a system to evaluate the experts. I would suggest that to some extent it already exists. Let’s call it Google. More importantly, it speaks directly to the importance of trust. If the so-called pundits can no longer be trusted, who else is there?

Ultimately, however, organizations need to be far more careful with respect to the subject matter experts they trot out to the media. Fancy titles are no longer sufficient if their scorecard shows a record of fewer wins than losses no matter how sensational their sound bites.

Following a week-long (yet far too short) respite in Baskerville country, and endless hours playing catch-up on email and my various feeds, several items caught my eye that further reinforced the good, bad and ugly of this wild west world of social media.

It would seem that not without a few scratches, scrapes and bruises are those who seek to both ignore and embrace the changing communications and media landscape emerging from the social media scullery. 

Case in point #1:

(h/t to the crisisblogger) So it’s not enough that we exist in a culture of misinformation defined by media democratization and fragmentation, immediate electronic delivery and increasing “sensationalism”, but now it appears the Wall Street Journal has decided to throw caution and, quite possibly, common sense to the wind:

According to the story, WSJ managing editor Robert Thomson recently outlined in a memo to staff his new vision around breaking news: “A breaking corporate, economic or political news story is of crucial value to our Newswires subscribers, who are being relentlessly wooed by less worthy competitors. Even a headstart of a few seconds is priceless for a commodities trader or a bond dealer – that same story can be repurposed for a range of different audiences, but its value diminishes with the passing of time. 

“Given that revenue reality, henceforth all Journal reporters will be judged, in significant part, by whether they break news for the Newswires.”

 Without question, traditional journalism is in the fight of its life. And for most traditional media outlets any hope of emerging unscathed (or, in some extreme cases, even staying afloat) as the digital tsunami rolls ashore is clearly folly. Brutally translated, however, what this edict says to me (despite assurances that might be made to the contrary) is simply this: the need to be first will henceforth trump the need for accuracy and context.

Case in point #2

As with the good writers at the Torch (who also offered up some useful tips for engaging with bloggers), I too applaud Conservative MP and parliamentary defence secretary Laurie Hawn’s foray into social media engagement, specifically his recent response to a posting by Ottawa Citizen Journalist and Defencewatch blogger David Pugliese (You can read Pugliese’s take on it here, and Hawn’s comments here - and below).

“Just noticed this silly piece and, although I know I shouldn’t do this, I can’t help it this once.  Like a lot of jouranlists, Mr. Pugliese is not averse to being selective with facts and context, so let me add what he forgot to tell you.  My question to VAdm McFadden was in response to an earlier question from one of the opposition members who implied that the CF was ill-prepared to react effectively to an airspace incursion at the Olympics, similar to what we had seen in the North.  VAdm McFadden knew exactly why I was asking the question and it was intended to show the ridiculous nature of the opposition member’s suggestion.  Since Mr. Pugliese is selective with his facts, one should be equally selective in using him as a source of truth and accuracy in journalism.  As for the other inaccuracies in some of the contributions, I’ll let you labour on in self-delusion.  Rage on, my friends.”

It’s juicy stuff, and perhaps – per the comments via the Torch writers – a tad heated. That said, I’m all for journalists and bloggers being held to account for what they write. Moreover, to see our elected officials engaging in the conversation is something I’d like to see more of. My hope is that the outcome of this doesn’t scare such folk away.

The critical learnings: 1) If you’re going to play in the sandbox, get your facts right and be prepared to back them up. As a trained journalist, Pugliese appears to have done his homework. And I trust that he has (although I’ve not read the transcript in question). Can the same be said for Hawn?  2) When you jump in, be prepared to swim. Should Hawn feel obliged to answer every question thrown back at him by Hawn. I’m not so sure, for a variety of reasons. However, some form of response, if even to acknowledge the questions and to point him to the right folk (although it seems that David’s appreciation for DND’s public affairs team isn’t overly high) would be appropriate.