I make a lot of predictions about the future of public relations and the media on this blog, sometimes taking heat. Nothing felt the burn more in 2010 than a post I wrote in July calling for increased transparency in online commenting and improving the authenticity of digital communications.
At the time, I suggested that by validating and authenticating online commenting, we could open a new frontier in public relations by offering valid, transparent commenting that would provide our clients an even greater ability to share their message.
A couple of my readers shouted me down, contending that such a system already exists because commentators can choose to give their name. While this is true, I contended that because the vast majority of comments are anonymous, freewheeling, and often downright nasty, it prevents more level-headed commentators from taking time to offer their thoughts.
How could an unknown, unimportant, fringe figure with only 30 followers come to dominate national headlines for nearly a week? And why, at a time of great national economic and political uncertainty, did the media invest so many resources in such a non-story, overlooking real news with true gravitas?
Certainly, it could have all been the lunacy of the situation, juxtaposed against the mosque-building controversy near Ground Zero. For those in the media who support the building of the mosque, the Quran burning provides further evidence of anti-Islam sentiment and ices an already slippery slope they believe America is headed down.
But dig deeper and you discover that the real fan of the flame had nothing to do with New York mosque-building or media bent left or right. Rather, the Quran story is a perfect example of how we as PR counsels have to advise our clients. Every day, we must remind our clients that every issue does not warrant a response, and commenting to or about lunatics is a surefire way of elevating a story best left untold.
I am reminded of a recent issue about an iron manufacturer that was facing allegations of hiring illegal immigrants. A distorted and heavily edited YouTube video suggested as much. But the issue itself was nothing more than a union trying to undermine an open-shop business. Enraged, the client wanted to go on the offensive and make public the union's dirty tricks.
The smarter tact, though, was to ignore a potentially inflammatory situation that if handled poorly, could have transformed the client into a central figure in a national debate over illegal workers. We urged them to relent. They listened. They went back to selling iron, no less the wear.
In the case of Pastor Terry Jones, the story became a story after Gen. David Petraeus, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and President Barack Obama either reached out or chimed in on the issue, thus elevating it to the status of news. Pastor Jones rode the coattails of other men's errors and gained weight and prominence. Once this standard was met, media were free to cover the issue with impunity as to their own wisdom. A non-news story became news because of another's mismanagement.
It's a common situation -- one we as PR practitioners increasingly face in a world where anyone can gain voice, no matter their legitimacy. The Internet provides the forum. But does it all require a response? The answer depends on:
1. Are you effectively monitoring? Averting self-triggered communication annihilation is often as easy as knowing what's being said about you, your company, and its brand. In the Quran case, media were monitoring the situation, and knew that Islamic media were covering it. But that wasn't enough to elevate the issue to a story domestically. Rather it required legitimate responses from legitimate sources -- Petraeus, Gates, and Obama -- to trigger coverage. If level heads had prevailed, they would have realized that Terry Jones did not warrant a response, and the risk of doing so was transforming it into a national media story.
2. Who is the source and is it legitimate? Terry Jones was only legitimized after national figures responded to him. Our military and political figures need to stay clear of the lunatic fringe, rather than invite them into the dialogue.
3. Who are the influencers? The hothouse of the Internet can incubate non-stories into stories. CNN's Rick Sanchez, who first covered this story stateside after seeing it on Twitter in July, did us all a disservice by not ignoring a tweeting moron.
4. Is there any way to respond short of a public forum? Political and military leaders have a full arsenal of tools to respond. Does it have to be public, in light of media scrutiny?
5. Who responds, if a response is required? The Terry Jones case is directly analogous to any number of comments that take place 24/7 online. Those that require a response can often be taken care of by service-level employees, not the CEO. By elevating the response to Terry Jones to the most powerful people in the world, a story was made, the die was cast, and the rest of the madness ensued.
Yes, absolutely commenters ought to identify themselves. For as much as it provides credibility perhaps to the folks they're commenting about, it can eliminate the false courage people have when posting anonymously and cut down on some of the nonsense that has to be monitored.
Thanks for the comment, John. I appreciate you taking time to read my blog. I think you are right. All too often, comments lose their value because anonymity emboldens ridiculousness. And that's fine. But comments can also be a valid part of the conversation.
That's why I suggested a hybrid system where the rabble can still rouse, while those of us who want to enter into more thoughtful discussions have an opportunity to do so in the bright light of transparency. In the end, I think this might serve everyone's needs and provide a way to further our clients' objectives, while responding to legitimate issues and concerns brought to light by real people seeking real answers.
DooDoo's irreverence brings an air of lightness to the daily drama of Philadelphia sports. But would DooDoo do the voodoo that he do do if the Inquirer required him post under his real name? It's a question that underscores the ongoing debate within the media as to whether readers' comments should stop being anonymous and rather should be accompanied by the name of the writer.
The issue of anonymity has plagued the public relations industry ever since the advent of digital media. On one hand, anonymity allows for greater voice and opinion. As this theory goes, commentators, such as an employee at a company that is engaged in illegal activity, would not post to a media site if not for the protection of anonymity.
The same goes for consumers, who under anonymity feel more comfortable reviewing, chastising, and criticizing a company or product. Then, there's the counter argument, that anonymity coarsens public discourse, and provides a water cooler for ugly, offensive remarks.
It also erodes the value of comments themselves. Without transparency, anyone can say anything at any time without impunity. The media knows that continued lack of accountability will kill what has become a golden goose of online reporting -- comments, which can often attract more readership than the article itself and provide a scorecard for editors to determine what is most interesting to any given audience.
Some media are already moving to add a new level of transparency, and along with it, authenticity, to their reader comments. The Sun Chronicle in Attleboro, Mass., recently introduced a new system that requires commenters to register their names, addresses, phone numbers, and credit card numbers.
The Sun Chronicle charges a one-time fee of 99 cents to activate the account. Commenters' names then appear online along with their posts. The Wall Street Journal has required names to appear with reader comments since 2008.
From a public relations point of view, there is real value in transparency. Anonymity makes it nearly impossible to assess the validity of an allegation or defamatory remark made against a client online.
At the same time, as an industry, we are bound ethically to disclose our representation when commenting online in response to the media or on review sites. In that respect, transparency would level the playing field, requiring both sides to come clean as to who is behind a comment online.
Yet, complete transparency is unlikely to happen. Right now, the media place great value in online reader comments as an eyeball aggregator and a way to score reporters and stories. Required transparency would put a brake on the number and frequency of comments.
What's the answer? How about a hybrid system whereby commenters could chose to be anonymous or not? Those commenters who opt to give their names -- and validate them with e-mail and credit card verification -- would have their comments posted higher than those who remain anonymous.
Those who don't take off the mask would be relegated to the end of the list of comments, defusing their impact. To further encourage transparency, reporters would be encouraged to engage with those commenters who disclose their identity through a special two-way feature of the blog or site. Such attention would trigger even more comments.
No doubt, those of us who read the media would be more likely to give greater credibility to named commenters. After all, these commenters are assuming the real risk that flows from public comments, even if it's just a negative response from the crowd. And at the same time, this hybrid system of opt-in transparency would still allow the rabble to rouse and the media to score themselves against the visceral response of the masses.
So DooDoo would still be allowed to do the voodoo that he do do. But we would all have a better understanding of who is saying what, for what purposes, and for which intended results. At the same time, the public relations industry would gain an additional, more credible tool for correcting the record, responding to misstatement of fact, resetting agendas, and gaining legitimate visibility.
