Where people get their campaign news

INTERNET GAINS MOST AS CAMPAIGN NEWS SOURCE 

BUT CABLE TV STILL LEADS

Social Media Doubles, but Remains Limited

(Pew Research Center)

We in public radio like to think of ourselves as a reliable, dependable, informative and in-depth sources for campaign news. Our hope is that were the go-to source for information you can rely on. But, Public Radio is not where most Americans go to get their election news. NPR and Public Radio are ranked ninth. Public Radio is tied with Facebook.

According the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism Cable TV is still number one with 41% of respondents in the survey reporting they go to cable. Local TV News is second. The Internet is third. National TV news is fourth with 31%

NPR is ninth with 12%. It is tied with Facebook and Late Night Comedy Shows. Conservative Talk Radio gets 16%.

When it comes to believing which source is most helpful...NPR gets 4%. Talk radio gets 2%. Cable News is believed to be the most helpful with 24%.

Three Takeaways 

• Estimates of Public Radio's Audience used to be around 10% of the universe of radio users. NPR stations remain close to that benchmark despite declining audience for traditional media.
• 88% of the potential audience never listens to Public Radio.
• Only one-third of Public Radio's audience finds the service "most helpful."

Please click on the link above for more details.

Voter Intimidation and the media/connect the dots.

Billboards in Cleveland, Milwaukee and Columbus proclaimed earlier this month, “Voter Fraud Is A Felony! Punishable by up to three-and-a-half years in prison and a $10,000 fine." The Billboards are owned by Clear Channel. Clear Channel is owned by Bain Capital. Bain was run for years by Mitt Romney. Romney still owns a tons of stock in Bain. These dots seem easily connected. It is unclear who bought the messages.

Clear Channel also owns over 800 radio stations.

Clear Channel refuses to disclose who paid for the message but, they have agreed to take them down after protests about voter intimidation. Clear Channel says it has a policy against anonymous political ads which they remembered after the protests grew. 

A Federal Court in California ruled that it would be OK for public broadcasting to run political ads to raise revenue. Given the lack of control over the content by the commercial media, the idea seems misguided. (I'm being nice.) 

Most of the political ads in my neighborhood range from misleading to out and out lies. Watching the local news on TV makes it clear the TV stations know the ads are deliberately false but, the stations won't do anything about it. There's a lot of money being spent and, the way Citizen's United is being used, most of the money is untraceable. It will not be so easy to connect the dots and, the way it works in politics is you tell a lie over and over until it becomes the truth. 

Did you know that Radio and TV stations are responsible for all of the content which they broadcast? This includes advertisements. Prior to 1982, if a radio or TV station aired a misleading or false advertisement, the station could suffer the consequences. The strength behind these rules were seriously diluted during deregulation in 1982. 

What's left? Journalists have a role. So do the rest of us. Speak up.

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/company-taking-down-anti-voter-fraud-billboards/article_102e7dfe-1cd1-11e2-b364-0019bb2963f4.html

Newsweek Goes digital in 2013 - Poynter

Newsweek to reduce staff, eliminate print edition as it goes digital only in 2013 | Poynter.

Newsweek says to has reached a tipping point. Circulation has dropped dramatically in the past few years. They've lost 51% of their readers since 2007.  Some of the content will be available on the Daily Beast. The digital edition will be a subscription service.

As public radio and television evolves with more of its content available digitally on-line, will that mean the demise of broadcast services and big layoffs like at Newsweek? Public radio is still doing very well. There a signs of stress brought on by economic pressure. Is the situation at Delmarva Public Radio (DPR) only the tip of the iceberg? Salisbury University and the SU foundation are looking for solutions to the station's funding dilemma. According to Public Radio Capital, the consulting service hired to look into the viability of DPR, outside sources are siphoning away audience. This is making it very difficult for the station to be sustainable. In fact, they've been running deficits for 17 out of the last 21 years.

Will digital delivery systems replace broadcast? What will be the effect on local broadcast operations?

Public Broadcasting, Grants and Accountability (Networking)

Recently, I attended a discussion about how non-profits can leverage corporate support. Many non-profits are finding themselves in the situation Public Broadcasting started to face in the 80's when the Reagan administration applied a rescission to the funding for CPB. The funding was cut by 50%.
Suddenly, membership campaigns and underwriting became very important.

The discussion got around to foundation support and grants. A key to renewal of grants is deliverables and, how the deliverables are communicated to the grantor.

The foundations we worked with in Connecticut were interested in education issues, the environment and, healthcare for the poor. The tendency might be to focus only on the obvious...audience size and the number of reports. The foundations we worked with in Connecticut wanted measurables beyond the standards of audience data and the number of reports and programs offered.  We kept track of the contacts we made when researching the issues and the reports. We kept track of the community groups we interacted with as a result of our conversations inside and outside the building. We also included information about the number of on-air promotions, Social Media mentions and interactions, phone conversations, emails, podcasts and the hits to the Webpage.

Getting outside the broadcast facility is important. It is a lot like networking. Public Broadcasting is not just what it puts out over the air or the web. It is a lot more than the one-way conversations of the 70's, 80's and 90's. The community connections created by the community service we offer are much broader than we realize.

Reporting on Deliberately Misleading Statements

Lost in the shuffle of the debate this week were the deliberately misleading statements made by the candidates. Journalists should not be shy about reporting on the lies, half-lies and misleading statements. Maybe I'm too caught up in my own standards of ethical behavior and integrity  When it comes to our leaders and future leaders it seems to be a matter of course. It seems to be okay to lie and lie again, as long as you get elected.

I was in New Britain for a classic car show. A sign in a toy shop window caught my attention. The sign was promoting the fact that the store sold Boy Scout and Girl Scout Uniforms.  By taking a picture and editing out portions of the sign...by taking the message out of context...I'm misleading you. They do not sell scouts. They sell the uniforms.

There are journalists and other organizations reporting on these issues. But it seems there are so many misleading statements being repeated over and over that most of the electorate believe them. And, what do the lies say about the people who would lead us? It's okay as long as we win? When do the lies stop? Can you place your trust in somebody who lies all the time?

Lost among all the hoopla about who won the debate was the fact that the winner played fast and loose with the truth.

NPR reported on how the candidates manipulated the statistics they used. Sources included FactCheck.org, Politifact.org and the Washington Post.

Romney Goes On Offense, Pays For It In First Wave Of Fact Checks

One of the biggest disputes was over tax cuts. Obama argued that Romney's plan to stimulate the economy includes a tax cut totaling $5 trillion that, Obama said, isn't possible because the Republican nominee is also promising to spend money in other places.
Romney flatly disputed that number. "First of all, I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut," he said.
Who's right? The Washington Post's Fact Checker says the facts on this one are on Obama's side. The New York Times notes that Romney "has proposed cutting all marginal tax rates by 20 percent — which would in and of itself cut tax revenue by $5 trillion."

What set me off was a mailing from Linda McMahon. It says, "Our Seniors Depend on Medicare But, Chris Murphy cut $716 Billion from Medicare." McMahon takes the facts out of context. 

"That amount — $716 billion — refers to Obamacare's reductions in Medicare spending over 10 years, primarily paid to insurers and hospitals," says PolitiFact. So there is a basis for the number. But, it adds, "the statement gives the impression that the law takes money already allocated to Medicare away from current recipients," which is why it gets only a "half true" rating.

Simply reporting on what the political candidate had to say is not enough. Dig a little deeper. Inform your readers, viewers and listeners by putting the politicians comments in full context. (Nobody is selling Girls Scouts...At least, not at this toy store.)

The barrage is only going to intensify over the next five weeks. Spending for 2012 has already surpassed 2008.