Diminishing Returns?

A funny thing happened on the way to the ballot box yesterday.

The local media, with one exception, stopped using social media to deliver me the news.

As a former media member, I'm watching with great interest from outside the industry, as stations adapt to using Facebook, Twitter, and other sources to deliver their content. In fact, I've written about this before.

Last night was particularly interesting to me, as there was a special election you might have heard about ... as Akron Mayor Don Plusquellic battled to avoid recall.

This issue has been dominating the discussion in Summit County ... with mayors from Hudson to Green chiming in on the effort.

So, needless to say, I watched with great interest as the returns came in.

Now, I'm smart enough to know where to get the results myself, but I thought I would keep an eye on the social media sites to see how the local media would deliver me the numbers.

To my surprise, outside of the fine folks over at Akron News Now (who also delivered a live video feed from their newsroom, which unfortunately, I missed), they didn't.

So, I started delivering the results myself ... on both Facebook and Twitter, sometimes even getting the numbers up faster than the folks at ANN (but not by much.)

Interestingly, one television station (who shall remain nameless), had an assignment editor "tweeting" the results under her Twitter account, but only after she received a call from the reporter in the field.

In other words, by the time they were "tweeted" they were already behind.

Here's what confuses me. Why not just have the reporter tweet them himself?

The old ways of delivering results are dead, folks.

The social media world, and its consumers, want their news hand-delivered, and they want it fresh.

It absolutely floors me that television stations and newspapers that tweet on a regular basis didn't bother to offer the results through social media.

So, when it came to getting the results yesterday the quickest, Akron area consumers basically had three options.

1. The Board of Elections website.

2. Akron News Now.

3. Me -- a guy sitting in his office delivering the numbers while listening to a Tribe game.

The fact that there are at least 7 or 8 other news organizations that I, personally, defeated last night should be of GREAT concern to them.

Because, if private citizens like me can take journalism into their own hands, what use will we have for those who actually get paid to deliver the news?

PS: To every news outlet who wants me to be their "Facebook Friend of the Day" ... stop pandering. Don't lip service social media ... either go all in, as ANN did, or face the consequences.

The Joke's On Us!

Let me begin by saying I can't stand April Fool's Day.

To me, it's amateur hour, where people who think they're funny decide to show the world just how un-funny they are.

I would never claim to be funny (witty maybe), so I usually pass on the prank-playing tradition of the day.

But, a former colleague of mine always participates ... and today, something real interesting happened.

Every year, this former colleague writes an outrageous story on his blog ... something so "out of left field" it can't possibly be true. It usually does not end in "April Fool's" ... or any acknowledgement that the story is a joke.

Now, this blog post isn't to criticize him, it's to point out something that's happened that could easily spin these "jokes" out of control.

You see, in the year since he wrote his last "joke post", newsrooms have turned to social media to help slow their decline.

Facebook pages, blogs, and Twitter feeds have all become part of the "official" news distribution system.

Which is where the dangers of jokes like today's lies.

You see, when the blog was my colleague's personal addition to the the day's news, the joke was fine.

But today, after he wrote the post, he directed people to it with a salacious "tease" on both his Twitter and Facebook pages.

I'm ok with that ... to a certain extent. After all, those feeds are his personal feeds.

But, this is where the line blurs.

You see, those social media sites are ALSO "official" ways to distribute the news. In fact, my friend uses both to solicit both story ideas, and to "tease" folks to that evening's newscasts.

Today, some of his Facebook "friends" have already posted responses that indicate they believe his joke is a REAL story that my former colleague is breaking.

This is really, really dangerous to me.

To top it off, his station's "official" Twitter feed also picked up his blog post, and blasted it out for all to see, with no indication that it's a joke.

This is where the joke goes over the edge.

Look, I like a good laugh as much as the next person. But, the evening news is not "morning zoo" radio with zany sound effects, and prank phone calls.

It's a place people turn for credibility, and today's "blog prank" damages that credibility a bit ... when it's being disseminated using "official" means.

To top it off, the same station gave me four lines on a story that I'm interested in, a pizza shop employee opening fire and killing a robber.

And, within the four lines, is at least one error.

I'd rather have folks concentrating on the news ... and not trying to make me laugh.

So, what do you think? Should I lighten up?

Or from a true journalism standpoint, does the convergence of newsrooms into social media make "jokes" not so funny anymore?

EDIT: My former colleague explained his blog post here. He says part of it is to not "always believe what you read/hear." Do you buy the explanation?