Dear Globe & Mail,

I really like you. I don’t have a subscription to you because I’m normally too busy to read you every day, but I often buy a copy of you from the newstand in my building because it is simply easier (and more environmentally friendly) to share you with my coworkers, or to simply read you online.  As I’ve written before, one of my favorite Saturday activities is to buy your weekend edition and read through it over a coffee.

Despite what everyone says, you also seem to be pretty popular with the fickle blogging crowd. I mean, as of today you had a almost 60,000 blog reactions on Technorati, and over 200,000 inbound links according to Google blog search. You’re still a primary source of information for these people.

If the recent debacle of CNN erroneously reporting that Steve Jobs was in poor health is anything to go by, citizen journalism is as flawed as Andrew Keen says it is. As a traditional media force, people still respect you.

But then you go and do something like trying to charge me $4.95 for a newspaper article that I’ve already paid for and read, and this hurts me (telling me that this content will only be available for 30 days only adds insult to injury).

Your greatest asset is the thousands and thousands of pages of information and news stories that you have in your archives. People want to view this content, and just as they have endured advertising in your print publications, they’ll endure the same kind of advertising on your website.

I understand your thinking when it comes to locking up this content behind a pay wall: it is valuable information, so people will pay to see it.

The problem is, you are only half-right. It is valuable information, but only when it is easy to access. In the age of Google, people will quickly move on and find the information elsewhere, somewhere where it easier to get at.

I know that you have a lot of people working for you (like Christie Blatchford) who don’t understand very much about computers, the state of media today or even life in the 21st century. But that doesn’t mean you have to end up as a failure. It just means that you have to pay attention to the people that want to help you.

Change your ways, Globe & Mail. or we’re through, and it won’t be because I’ll stop reading you. It will be because everyone stops reading you, and you’ll cease to exist.

Love,

Parker

PS: You should probably forward this letter to some of your other traditional media friends. I know that they are going through some tough times as well.

I meant to blog about this earlier, but two of the best headlines that I have ever read were both from last week:

“More Than 2 Dozen Cheerleaders Rescued From Jammed Elevator”

The two things that crossed my mind after reading this story were “only in Texas, eh?” and that the elevator repairman will be telling this story for the rest of his life.

“Mexican Woman Fights Off Lion With Machete After It Attacks Donkey”

A great read, and for some reason it reminded me of the Wikipedia article on Bear-baiting that mentions an event from the middle ages featuring a pony with an ape tied to its back against three dogs.

-Parker

Guest post: Hans Geelmuyden is a partner and leading senior adviser at the norwegian public relations agency Geelmuyden.Kiese. Since 1989, he has acted as adviser to major Scandinavian projects involving power changes both in the public and private sector, and he is often employed as a lecturer in strategic communication.

In journalistic circles, trusting communication advisors is not considered quite comme il faut. I’ve worked as a journalist and an editor myself and trust both occupational categories. So why is the trust not mutual?

An editorial in “Klima” (“Climate”) magazine no. 2/08 may illustrate the point. The editor, Tove Kolset, writes as follows: “I’m holding an interesting document in my hands: “A green car population demands political action.” Behind this brochure is Volvo Passenger Cars in Norway, assisted by the communication agency Geelmuyden.Kiese (GK), called in to put the message through. To be honest, I must admit that I felt more positively towards the brochure before I noticed GK’s involvement.”

Is there anything apart from prejudice behind Kolset’s distrust? Does she feel herself to be cheated? The information in the Volvo report is based on facts and research which Kolset is free to check. Kolset documents no faults in the factual information. She simply dislikes that Volvo has been assisted by professional communication advisors in making the report. Would it seem more satisfactory if the car manufacturer had done the job on their own without outside assistance? Or is it the very professionalism that’s bothering her? Should Kolset prefer the brochure to be produced by an amateur team from the middle of nowhere?

Economists are taught that perfect information is the basis of a perfect market. As neither perfect information nor perfect markets exist, communication advisors do. Each and every second, a battle over interpretations and interests is being fought in our society. Communication advisors as well as journalists participate in this battle, but in different roles. I trust journalists because I appreciate their role as guard dogs for the general population.

For myself, I claim no ideal purpose. Communication advisors represent the interests of one party. This is legitimate as long as these interests are openly presented. One-party interests should obviously be thoroughly examined. Journalists seeking knowledge do just that. They’re checking several sources and have little to fear from communication advisors. Journalists who instead reject information on the basis of emotions and prejudice are unprofessional, as are communication advisors out to fool to public.

Hans Geelmuyden

A few weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to take part in a one-day writing course offered by the Canadian Investor Relations Institute. It was taught by Bernard Simon, a former managing editor of the Financial Post and now a foreign correspondent for the Financial Times (view some of his work here). I am constantly trying to apply what he taught in my everyday writing, both for this blog and at work.
Bernard was kind enough to let me interview him for this blog, and his answers to my questions are below.

BlogCampaigning: How has the internet affected your writing?

Bernard Simon:The internet has had a profound effect on journalism.

It has dramatically sped up the news cycle. Many journalists accustomed to writing stories once a day or once a week are now filing pieces for their publications’ websites, and updating them regularly.

The internet has turned reporters into multi-taskers. Once upon a time, reporters expected simply to research and write stories. Now, many appear on website videos, host blogs and use cellphone cameras to add a new dimension to their stories.

Stories are no longer spiked for lack of space in the paper. Those that don’t fit in the paper can now run on the internet – one less source of newsroom complaints!

BlogCampaigning: How do you think blogs are influencing the way we write and read the news?

Bernard Simon: The most obvious impact of blogs is the array of new (and some loud old) voices that they bring to the news process. Many media websites have become non-stop town-hall meetings, with all that entails. Readers have access to a far wider variety of views. Conversely, they can make their own voices heard more loudly.

It’s both good and bad. For instance;

– Blogs bring a welcome diversity of views. Some are wonderfully well-informed and insightful; others are ill-informed, badly written, and not much better than diatribes.

– Bloggers and those who post comments are quick to point out journalists’ mistakes. Yet many are reluctant to admit and correct their own.

– Blogs have broken some big stories, and added useful perspectives to already-published ones. But they tend to have fewer resources than the established media, with the result that some do not match the standards applied by mainstream media outlets (for instance, fact-checking and quality of writing).

BlogCampaigning: Do you have anything else you want to say about blogs and/or online news?

Bernard Simon: It’s really important that we don’t allow the advantages of online news – speed, accessibility and variety of views – to undermine the reputation for fairness, accuracy and balance that mainstream media outlets have painstakingly built up over the years. This is one of the big challenges facing established media outlets as they open their websites to more outside voices.

Thank you very much for your time, Bernard!

-Parker