Public Health Affairs

Category: Uncategorized

  • Via Boingboing.net: Universal Subtitles

    I’m a huge, huge, huge proponent of utilizing the power of cheap, ubiquitous video distribution online. Few things can tell a story like a person actually telling a story, I say. Given that YouTube commands more than 2 BILLION views per day and it’s possible to take a $200 video camera and upload the footage via USB to YouTube in 30 minutes or less, I can’t see why more government agencies don’t utilize it. Sure it won’t win any awards, but what a great way to give your agency a real, human face.

    One of the real weaknesses of video is it’s poor ability to reach the deaf and hard-of-hearing communities and speakers of other languages. Now, I know that YouTube has the ability to add captions and subtitles to your videos, but what if you utilize other channels (to maximize your reach, obviously)?

    Cory Doctorow at Boingboing.net lets us know about a tool being developed that would allow your video to carry subtitles or captions where ever it lives online: 

    The nonprofit Participatory Culture Foundation has just launched an amazing new tool:Universal Subtitles. As the name implies, Universal Subtitles makes it ridiculously easy to add subtitles to practically any video on the web, including any HTML5 video, FLV, YouTube, Vimeo, Blip, Dailymotion (you can add subtitles to a video without having to host it yourself, and the same subtitle file can be associated with multiple copies of the video all over the net).>

    You can learn more about the effort here.

  • The Voice On The Line

    Now here’s an unusual one. Those of you with an ear to the political ground have probably already heard of this, and those of you in the corporate world should know about similar cases. I’m talking about the prank phone call: someone calling someone in power, while pretending to be someone the callee is friendly with. The banter, at least in those calls released, is friendly—almost back-slappingly so—and usually touches on a hot point issue in a way that the callee would rather not be released. A few days later, the callee usually releases a statement that their words were taken out of context or something similar.

    Today’s media landscape puts a unique spin on these tactics. Namely, is the call a prank like I described it, or is it some new form of guerilla journalism? Is this the realm of bloggers (gasp!), or will it become part of the mass media’s toolbox? Steven Silvers, at the link above, talks about this:

    We’ll be hearing about this for months, maybe years. Was it a prank call or guerilla journalism? Does the end – important insight into an elected leader’s intentions and personality – justify the means? Is there even such a thing as ethics in journalism when the public interest is at stake? Is transparency the only thing that matters? Is media accountable like politicians should be?

    All perfectly reasonable questions. But, Mr. Silver (and myself) feel that its pointless to spend much time thinking about them. Due to the success of the tactic, it would be malfeasance to not expect it to happen again. We can debate the ethicality of the tactic all we want, but even if it ever gets in front of a judge the damage will already have been done. What to do? I argue there are two things your PIO or PR Department should do. And be sure to note that I wholeheartedly support the former, though think the latter is the safe way to conduct business.

    First, it is your job as PIO to be party to the discussions around operations. Listen for rationale. Why are we doing it this way? If it’s unsavory, say so. You’re ultimately the one charged with defending the practice and protecting your organization, and you can’t rightly do that without understanding everything that you’ll be asked about. Ultimately, we should all strive to work for organizations and agencies that we can be proud of.

    Second, use your common sense. If David Koch calls out of the blue to speak with Governor, make sure it’s actually him. Check your caller ID, ask to call them back, vet the person on the phone. And do this even if everything you’ve got going on is above-board: it’s just good practice! The inconvenience experienced by your caller, if they’re real, totally outweighs the threat of putting your organization’s dirty laundry out to dry.

    I know we’ve got a lot of emergency response readers, so let me place this concern into your court as well. If a call comes in during a response from a person claiming to be the Mayor, do they get automatic access to the IC? What about if there are calls from the media questioning the nature and conduct of your response? (Especially if the questions are surrounding rationing response. Are you prepared to say why you’re allocating resources in one way but not another, candidly?)

  • Via ABC’s The Drum: The media is not there to help. It does not feel your pain

    The media presents itself as being in some way empathetic. They are there, they are broadcasting, because they care, because somehow bringing the images into our homes, over here across so much water, can … well, what?

    Surely anyone with a true need for information can access it through official channels? Appeals for donations are hardly a key feature of the current rolling cover. It follows then that everything else is a sideshow staged purely for amusement.

    The relationship between media and victims is so often plainly exploitative. Look no further than this afternoon’s News Limited websites, the Herald Sun and the Daily Telegraph. Both featured screen-wide images of a family, a father and two children, moments after they had been told there was no hope that their mother could have survived the crushing impact of the quake.

    All three are caught by the camera in a frozen spasm of grief. It is torture to see. It is an extraordinary intrusion … a stolen moment of agony that has nothing to do with any of us. The news agencies that flog the image have nothing to offer these people in return. No empathy, no support, merely a momentary exploitation of sorrow in the hope the image might arrest the passing internet eye and draw traffic. Grotesque.

    via abc.net.au

    Wow.

    Wow.

    From the mouths of editors.

    Jonathan Green, of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s The Drum blog posted an AMAZINGLY frank article today.

    Public information officers and public relations folks have, I’m sure, felt this very same way when dealing with the media, especially a national or international media. Swoop in, soak up resources, exploit the survivors and off like a flash without enriching–or even helping–the damaged community. Your community.

    I see so many lessons that we’ve talked about here, and so many more that I want to talk about that I’m kind of speechless. Understanding the media, ensuring that your local media is taken care of, ensuring that your community is shown in the best possible light, providing access, the list goes on and on. And yet, I’m taken aback by the frank tone of the article. The scathing language used. The validation of all of our worst fears.

    Reading back over my post now, I wish that I had let it stand by itself. I worry that I cheapen this single example of a member of the media calling his profession out. In the end, I left my thoughts only as an introduction to entreat you to forward this post widely.