The winter holidays and the Dog Days of August are usually good times to pitch off beat stories.  Lots of people are on vacation, yet there is still a news hole that needs filled.  Thus, it is often a great time to pitch evergreen or feature story ideas. Place an Op-Ed or bylined article. Catch up with reporters to talk trends.  However, it’s never a good time to badger reporters.

This MediaBistro story regarding a vague pitch is a an excellent illustration how PR folks can earn a negative reputation.

Does anyone really care about a media personality who’s profiled in a New Orleans magazine about Hurricane Katrina?  Even in our 140 character, text crazed world, you should still take time to explain why a story might be news worthy. Is there anniversary angle? Was an award won?  Were lives saved?

In the Dog Days of Summer … you have time to pitch better than this.  Please?

Pitch one:

Shepard Smith graces the cover of New Orleans Magazine for his Katrina coverage http://www.livingneworleans.com/?p=3988

Pitch two:

Go Shepard Smith!!! He’s on the COVER of New Orleans Living Magazine for Katrina! http://www.livingneworleans.com/?p=3988

Third time’s a charm:

Shep rocks: http://www.livingneworleans.com/?p=3988

For all the debate about the future of news, it seems to me that we are already living the future. Over the past decade, barrels of ink were spilled on how the Internet would change information consumption.  Today, mobile phones are ubiquitous – 20% of homes in the U.S. do not have a landline and the typical user has the mobile phone on 19 hours per day.

The Kindle and iPad have made digital publications tangible and, in many cases, a more enjoyable experience than holding a newspaper.

Five years ago, social media was a fad for college kids. Today, there are more than 290 social networking and media channels.

A study by the Center for the Digital Future at the USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism concludes that decline of newspapers continues at a rapid pace while trust in the Internet begins to erode. Yet, Wikileaks relied on the mainstream media to validate (or rather interpret, source and report) the more than 90,000 military documents about the war in Afghanistan.

I believe that there will always be a place and a critical need, especially in a democracy, for an informed public and professional journalists.  However, I’m not convinced there’s a need for the daily newspaper in printed format.  Local and news weeklies and special interest magazines serve a more specific purpose – news and analysis that you can take with you and read when you want.

Daily news demands immediate consumption.  The Internet, radio and TV provide more effective delivery channels. After reading the Wall Street Journal on the iPad, I canceled my print subscription.  I wish the Washington Post would create a more compelling app so I can cancel that print subscription as well.

In all this hand-wringing about the fate of journalism, what does it mean for the PR professional?

No profession remains constant in its practice. PR and journalism are in the relationship business. Thus the basics of our craft still apply. As technology continues to alter how we engage in building and maintaining those relationships, its important to remember that honesty and integrity matter. The only thing that follows you is your reputation so make sure you are managing it effectively both in your offline and online interactions with reporters.

#Apple #Antenna_Gate response was defensive PR. Heed the lessons of #Icarus #FanBoy is insulting http://bit.ly/9ZHb2f

Stereotypes exist for a reason. There’s a recognizable pattern, a kernel of truth to the general impressions that form stereotypes.

Many successful PR professionals and TV reporters (especially on FOX) are blonde.  When I named my blog, I purposefully played on my hair color and the wisdom invoked by my favorite accessory — Blonde Pearls PR Blog.

Ten, even five years ago, I would not have been so comfortable doing so. I’m pleased that constraints of rigid expectations have been loosen so that women can be more feminine in the workplace and in our expression.

Yet, we still have hurdles to overcome. Reading Howard Kurtz’s profile on Diane Sawyer, an anchor with an edge (and a role model I have long admired, along with Peggy Noonan who also is blonde), however, made me pause.

There it was. In the third paragraph. A reference to her looks. “This is the non-glamorous side of Sawyer, who at the moment — with her untamed hair, pale skin, black-rimmed glasses and plain white shirt — looks like a 64-year-old housewife in need of a cup of coffee.” Would he write that about NBC’s Brian Williams? CNN’s Anderson Cooper?

Thankfully, the rest of the article gave Sawyer the props she is due — an accomplished journalist bringing critical thought and improvement to her craft for the benefit of the viewers.

Yet, after decades of advancement for women in the workplace, why isn’t there more parity in reporting on the lives and professional accomplishments of men and women? Because stereotypes play a powerful role in how we think about women. Sans makeup, we are housewives or homebodies. Once we paint on the mask we are business women, soccer moms or teachers. Or in the case of female politicians once perceived as homely because of the wrong shade of lipstick, an “image” made over.

I long for the day when stories about women — executives, politicians, anchors, First Ladies — forget to mention designers, makeup and such. Better yet. How about covering men in the same fashion?

Unfortunately, that day is likely far away. The blogosphere is aggressively critiquing Elena Kagan’s makeover for her Senate confirmation hearings to become the next Justice on the Supreme Court. Female presidential appointees and candidates in an electronic age should care about their appearance, just as men should. The challenge is managing the unjustified scrutiny that accompanies women wherever they go.

Wendy Kaminer in The Atlantic recently posed the question: “Would Elena Kagan’s sexuality be a subject of so much speculation if she looked like Sarah Palin, or Kim Cattrall?”  Yes.  However, the commentary would be more flattering, but none-the-less denigrating and distracting from the discussion of her qualifications.

I met with a colleague awhile back to seek advice on job interview strategies. One of her cardinal rules, based on research, was to wear my hair in a bun or french twist so that it was off my face. While I often sport a pony tail on weekends or sultry summer days, I couldn’t bring myself to heed her advice. It just wasn’t me.

My advice in media training to women who appear on TV:  Befriend and trust the make up artist. But decline the lip gloss if you wouldn’t normally wear it.

You have to look comfortable in and with the accoutrements you choose — be it for a televised appearance, job interview or business meeting.

Commencement speakers want to offer helpful, memorable advice to the graduates.

For NBC journo Ann Curry, her commencement address illustrated instead the importance of research and knowing your audience. On Saturday, she named the wrong alumni in her speech to Wheaton College of Massachusetts graduates.

My guess is that speech writer and/or research assistant failed in the basic duty of “double sourcing” the facts — though Curry accepted sole responsibility for the failure. Classy and responsible but a significant failure for someone in the business of accuracy.  Also, the college’s PR staff should have done a better job sharing key facts about graduates, alumni and the institution with Curry and her staff.

In her apology, Curry succeed in admitting her mistake and complimenting the Wheaton community.  If you have to experience a public humiliation, this is a graceful way to respond.