This may come as a shock to lot of bloggers, but they are bound by the same rules on libel, slander and defamation as any reporter at an old media daily newspaper. I have written several times that the Internet is the wild west of the law. There have not been a lot of cases dealing with such things plagiarism, copyright infringement, and other areas of the law that govern publishing.

That is changing however.

“It was probably inevitable, but we have seen a steady growth in litigation over content on the Internet,” Sandra Baron, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center in New York, told the Los Angeles Times

“Although bloggers may have a free-speech right to say what they want online, courts have found that they are not protected from being sued for their comments, even if they are posted anonymously. Some postings have even led to criminal charges,” the LA Times reported.

This is my rant for this week. Just because you have a laptop and an Internet connection does not mean you can ignore the rules.  As many bloggers are now finding out, pretending those laws don’t apply get them into a whole heap of trouble.

Yet for some reason many bloggers continue to act like they can write and say what they want. There is something about the Internet and the feeling of anonymity that leads people to write things they would never say in person.

What also bothers me is that many blogger could not define libel if it bit them on the butt.

Here for your edification is the definition of libel from the Associated Press Style Book: “at its most basic, libel means injury to reputation. In some states libel is distinguished from slander, in that a libel is written or otherwise printed, whereas slander is spoken; in either case, the word defamation generally includes both terms. Words, pictures, cartoons, photo captions and headlines can all give rise to a claim for a libel.”

One of the very first things drilled into every rookie reporter are the rules of libel. Lawsuits are expensive. Editors don’t like to use their budgets on legal fees.

“Most people have no idea of the liability they face when they publish something online,” Eric Goldman, who teaches Internet law at Santa Clara University, told the LA Times. “A whole new generation can publish now, but they don’t understand the legal dangers they could face. People are shocked to learn they can be sued for posting something that says, ‘My dentist stinks.’”

Under federal law, websites generally are not liable for comments posted by outsiders. They can, however, be forced to reveal the poster’s identity if the post includes false information presented as fact.

That’s right, you cannot hide behind a false identity. Keep in mind that to everyone at your Internet Service provider – with the exception to those who send you the bill – you are a series of numbers. Those numbers are unique and cannot be changed by you. In other words, they can identify you quite easily.

“There’s a false sense of safety on the Internet,” Kimberley Isbell, a lawyer for the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard University said to the Times. “If you think you can be anonymous, you may not exercise the same judgment” before posting a comment, she said.

So, think before you hit that publish button.

I am refurbishing a typewriter that will be used during my daughter’s upcoming wedding. The typewriter will be used instead of a standard guest book. Rather than sign something, guests will type their best wishes for the bride and groom – if they remember how to use a typewriter.

As I was cleaning and oiling the machine, I realized there was a metaphorical relationship between social media and that typewriter.

The typewriter was my wife’s college machine. It is really nice Smith-Corona manual. For those of you who never used a typewriter, manual means that it’s not electric. The insides are quite elaborate and sophisticated. It takes a series of levers to move each key so the letter strikes the paper. This thing was state-of-the-art 40 years ago.

Today that state-of-the-art machine is viewed as a quant reminder of a bygone era. Sure some people still use typewriters, but some people still use candles. But just as almost no one relies on candles for their primary light source, almost no one uses a typewriter as their primary source of document production.

Computers have taken over almost completely from typewriters. It has changed the way things are done. I tried to type something on the typewriter yesterday. I found the way I think and formulate ideas has changed. My MacBook is much more efficient and a lot faster. No more using White out correction fluid to paint over mistakes.

Yet when the first word processors came along, there was a lot of a resistance. I worked in newsrooms then, a typewriter dense environment if there ever was one. The old reporters argued those word processors were just not as good or efficient as a typewriter. They were too complex, to prone to error and what would happen if the power went out? Better to stick with the Royal upright typewriters. Again an explanation – an upright typewriter looked like an upright piano.

A lot of people look at social media the same way as those old newsroom bulls looked at word processors. It is too complex, it will never work, why don’t we just stick with what has worked for the last 100 years.

The reasons why not are obvious. Social media works better.

The people who ran newsrooms had the foresight to realize that those word processors were the best choice. They saw they were more cost efficient. Sections of the old production processes could be eliminated, keeping costs down and the product competitive.

You know how most newsrooms got the old ones to accept the word processors? One day it was announced that new equipment was being brought into the newsroom. Anyone who wanted to could take their typewriter home at no charge. It was theirs to keep.

When everyone got in the next day, there were shiny new word processors sitting at each desk. A course in how to use them was given. It was a swim or sink move. It worked. It was a pretty painless change. The veterans realized the change was for the better and it was inevitable.

I think a lot of companies need to do the same thing. Instead of dithering about social media, they need to make the change. It will be for the better. And it is inevitable.

Yes, I know I am far from the first person to make the observation that social media is the best way for small business to market. But, Green Bay Packer President Mark Murphy drove the point Friday morning at a “Power Breakfast” sponsored by the Milwaukee Business Journal.

In giving a report on the state of one of the oldest franchises in the National Football League, Murphy stated the team was actively exploring using social media to stay in closer touch with its fan base.

At first, I was surprised. You have to understand there is no more fanatic fan base in all of sports than the Packer Nation. As a note, I am a proud member of that green and gold clad horde.

Before you start bringing up other teams and their fans, let me give you a few facts:

• According to the Packers’ website, the team has sold out 285 straight games at Lambeau Field – 269 regular season, 16 playoff – since 1959. Packer fans go to away games just to get a chance to see the team play in person.
• Heck, 20,000 or so people will show up to watch an outdoors practice.
• The Packers do not sell single game tickets. There is no need.
• Murphy said there are approximately 80,000 people on the season ticket waiting list. According to former Sports Illustrated writer Rick Reilly, an average of 70 people a year give up their tickets. Tickets are usually handed down through the generations. You do the math on how long it will take to cut that season ticket list down.

So, why would a team who is not just in touch with its fans, but seemingly joined at the hip with them, consider jumping into the social media pool? Because like any other small business, the team knows that it cannot rely on what has worked to keep working.

Yes, the Packers are small business in the NFL sense. Their home base is the 257^th largest city in the United States. Yes, they are the state of Wisconsin’s team. Even adding the people who live in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, those people in Northern Illinois who decide to root for the Pack and those from Iowa who aren’t Viking’s fans – the Packers have a potential fan base of around six or seven million people. I think there are that many people trying to get through New York City’s Lincoln tunnel on a Friday night.

Plus those fans are changing.

“My kids don’t read a newspaper,” Murphy noted. Most under 30s do not. So while the older of those in Packer nation still read print media, the younger do not Murphy clearly knows he needs to go where the fans are. For in this time of decreasing brand loyalty and fickle fans, no smart company is going to take anything for granted.

So rather than rely on Wisconsin’s newspapers and television stations, the team is turning to channels such as Facebook and Twitter.

There are several lessons to be learned, but I think the major one is that the Packers are being pre-emptive. They are morphing their marketing efforts before there’s a problem. It is a lesson all businesses should learn.

I was at lunch meeting the other day, listening to four representatives of the Milwaukee media discuss how they are now using social media a great deal. They all said Twitter is a good way to reach out to them, they all have presences on Facebook and how their blogs give them chances to do more in-depth writing.

As a note, the Southeastern Wisconsin Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America put on the panel discussion. I am a member of the Milwaukee-based chapter. I am also a member of the chapter’s Social Media Committee. Many of the chapter’s of the members are beginning to explore social media. A few, like me, have jumped in headfirst.

The presentations were well done. As I worked in the Milwaukee media market for two decades, I know those people. The panelists were from the local NBC affiliate, two local business publications and a completely on-line entertainment and music site.

However, as I sat and listened to my former colleagues, I was struck by something. Do we really need those outlets anymore? Do we need any media outlets anymore? Or has Social Media taken over completely?

For me, this was a very radical thought. I spent 26-years as a print reporter. I decided to be reporter when I was 12-years-old. That’s true. One night in the pre-cable television days, I saw a movie about newspapering called  “The Front Page.” It was original 1931 version starring Adolphe Menjou. I was hooked. I followed that path until seven years ago when I saw how the business I loved was sinking. That’s when I made the jump to marketing and public relations.

Now, I wonder more and more if we need the my old avocation. The television reporter made the argument that we do because we need someone to filter and interpret the news.

I know that a lot of people on both ends of the political spectrum think there is come of big conspiracy to make the news favor a particular point of view. That’s what they hear when someone says “filter and interpret.” It’s not true.

All good reporters have a b.s monitor. When someone tells them something, they filter the information through that monitor. Many times, the needle points to the b.s side. Plus, any good reporter tries to put information into context. What does it mean when a government body announces cuts of $10 million to its budget. The reporter’s job is to provide a context, an interpretation, for that budget cut. How many jobs will be lost? What programs will get cut?

However, I am not sure that people want that service anymore. If someone who uses the Web, as the primary source of information is a fairly smart, they are going to check more than one source for their news. If you read two or three online reports, check the blogs and follow the Twitter feed, you can develop a pretty accurate picture of what is the real story.

I have often written about how social media is cutting out the need to advertise in the traditional ways. If the marketing program is implemented correctly, traditional media only has to be a small part of the effort.

Now, I wonder if the same thing is happening to news reporting. Twitter seems to be taking over the  “breaking news” reports that radio and television do. Bloggers are filling the gaps left by publications that have cut their staffs and space they devote to news. Sites such as the Huffington Post – which is both blog and news site – are now viewed as players in the media world. I don’t know about other such sites, but the Huffington Post staffs White House press conferences.  That’s acceptance.

There is nothing to indicate this trend is going to slow down. If anything, is it going accelerate. Maybe there will be a time in the near future when traditional media is no longer relevant.

This is one topic I really curious about what you all think. Please comment and let me know.

I spent 26 years as a working reporter. In that time, I dealt with a lot of traditional public relations and marketing pitches. Social media didn’t exist. While I was on the receiving end of many inspired pitches, all of them were basically the same. The only real difference was the quality of writing and the freebies those pitching tried to entice me with.

As a note: reporters cannot accept anything of value. It is against most publication’s ethics code. So don’t send anything. Anything I received went to charity if possible. If it was food, it went to a food bank. If it was perishable food or beer (hey, I work in Milwaukee) I shared with the entire newsroom. I always said – maybe I have my price, but other than Bill Gates, I doubt anyone could pay it. A box of cookies wasn’t going to influence me.

When I left journalism just over seven years, I went to work for any agency run by a former reporter. It was a great place to learn. Like everyone else, I did the traditional things one does in P.R. and marketing. The only difference for me was that my pitches and writing were better. I had a good track record there and at my next job.

The appearance of social media four years ago changed everything. It was also when I learned that traditional public relations and social media go very well together. I had a client that couldn’t get employees to open emails. After doing some research, we decided to a series of podcasts. The podcasts were very successful. It wasn’t even called social media then, the usual title was Web 2.0

The employees found out about the podcasts through the traditional channels. There was an announcement in the company’s newsletter; each department head received a written announcement to read to their employees. We also got some press coverage because at the time what we did was unique.

Without going into a lot of tedious detail, I soon learned when I went out my own that social media is becoming the dominant form of marketing. I have done everything I can to learn about it and how to use it. Still, the growing dominance of social media doesn’t mean that there is still not a place for traditional methods.

Do not discount the power of a story on the front page of a local newspaper or on the local television station. While it’s a shrinking group, many people still get their information from traditional media. That includes elected officials. It is silly to ignore those people. They are probably also on line, but what’s wrong with reaching them through multiple channels?

Yes, I advise sending out a social media press release. See last Monday’s blog for the reasons. But it is still a press release. Just in a super-charged form.

Twitter is a great place to release news. Many, many journalist now follow Twitter. Rather than call 50 reporters, you can send out one tweet and get journalists to call you. They might be working for a traditional outlet, but you reached out using social media. See, you married the two methods.

As for employees, I always advise a combination of social media and traditional methods. In any kind of many workplaces, manufacturing, retails, and others, employees are not going to have constant access to the Internet. They probably have it at home, but they are not at home at times when you want to get the word out. If it’s really important, you should have a face-to-face meeting. If it is not that important, but if you want employees to know something, there is nothing wrong with posting a notice where they can see it.

None of this changes my opinion that CEOs should be blogging, companies should have Facebook Fan pages, should be posting videos on YouTube, creating groups on LinkedIn and tweeting company news. That should be the primary focus.

But just as I use a hammer on home improvement projects that first belonged to my grandfather, traditional tools still have a place in marketing and public relations.

When I first met my doctor almost 30 years, I walked into his office, sat down and asked him: “so, what was your grade in anatomy?” He laughed. I asked the question again. He saw I was serious. He pointed to his medical school diploma that was hanging on the wall behind me. It said he had graduated summa cum laude. I was satisfied.

Why did I ask? Because as the joke goes: do you know what they call the medical student who barely passes? Doctor.

You should be asking the same kind of questions when you decide to hire a social media agency. Too many times, I see people and agencies pass them selves off as social media experts when in reality, all they have done is signed up for Facebook and have a Twitter account. When you ask if they use social bookmarking, or how they measure ROI, their eyes go blank. Or, they give you some gibberish about how ROI is difficult to measure.

The agency you want to hire should have a solid grounding in both traditional marketing and public relations and social media. They understand how to use both, how to meld them and how to measure results.

Social media as a method of public relations and marketing matured about four years. That’s when broadband became widespread. Broadband is necessary to run most social media platforms.

Because it is so new, there are not yet any solid standards for determining who’s an expert and who’s a pretender. I have studying and using social media for about three years. I started doing podcast scripts and moved on from there. I have been doing it long enough that I know what I am talking about.

What distinguishes one agency from another is how long they have been using social media, their level of commitment to it, and how successful they have been.

So, if I were looking to hire a social media expert, here would be the questions I would ask:

• How much experience with social media have you and your agency had?

You want to know if they attended a couple of webinars, maybe have a Facebook page and Tweet and now think they are an expert. That does not make them an expert, not by a long shot. Ask to see their blogs, Twitter accounts, LinkedIn usage, Facebook pages, and YouTube posts. This shows they are experienced users. Ask if they use Digg, Stumbleon and other social bookmarking sites.

• Where did they learn social media?

This shows their level of commitment. And also ask how they stay on top of the changing trends in social media. That’s important.

• Ask for the names of clients for which they have run successful campaigns. You want to be able to check on what they did and if it worked.

• How do they view social media – as a tactic, a strategy, or an entire new way of marketing?

The answer is the last one. Social media is not a one-off. It requires a commitment of time and resources. I would argue that it is more effective than traditional marketing, but it takes knowledge to do it right.

• How do they integrate traditional marketing and public relations efforts with social media?

Traditional methods definitely still have a place. Often there is a melding of the old and the new. Many journalists now use Twitter for instance. You need to make sure that traditional methods are not neglected.

• Who handles social media in their agency?

You want to know the senior people are committed to social media. You don’t want to find yourself working with some junior assistant account executive that got the assignment because he or she has a Facebook page.

• How do they measure Return On Investment (ROI) for social media?

There is no one method to do it. Personally, I believe it can best be measured by increased website traffic and sales, but there are other ways. Make sure the agency has a method for measuring ROI.

Those questions you should get started. Next week, I am going tell you about to set up a social media campaign.

And as for Wednesday’s rant: well, I am going to give you my take on NBC’s decision to interrupt the Olympic closing ceremonies.

Print publications are still a viable way to spread the news, a trio of business editors said last week. Print is still a vital to tell people what’s going, the three argued in a panel discussion held before the Southeastern Wisconsin chapter of the Public Relations Society of America.

“We are bullish on print,” Mark Sabljak, publisher of the Business Journal of Milwaukee. “Some people still enjoy a print product.”

All three seemed to be cautiously embracing electronic media. Salbjak seemed to be holding out the most. For instance, he noted he said in 2009 there would no blogging at the Business Journal until the paper found a way to make a profit on such an effort. The paper’s is now blogging because it has found a way to monetize the effort.

However, social media is changing the way news is being covered, said Steve Jagler, executive editor of Biztimes Milwaukee. Sites such as Twitter are not competition, he explained. Rather, it is helping the paper extend its brand, Jagler said. Social media amplifies the paper’s ability to report the news.

“We have a staff that understands the possibilities of social media,” Jagler said.

Social media has turned newspaper in 24-7 operations, said Chuck Melvin, assistant managing editor/business for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The paper now has new ways to deliver the news. The paper is not longer just print-based. It now uses Twitter and other services to disseminate its stories.

“We are not just print-based anymore,” Melvin said. “Social media is a new way of delivering the news.”

Social media has actually improved the Journal Sentinel’s ability to cover news. By using blogs, the paper can pay more attention to niche markets. He cited reporter Tom Daykin’s real estate blog and art critic Mary Louise Schumacher’s blog on the Milwaukee art scene as two examples.

“I see a lot of growth in our blogs,” Melvin said. “We are also working to add more video to our website. It adds a lot of value to the reader experience.”

All three editors said the key to a successful story pitch is keeping it simple, providing relevant information and making sure the proper journalist is targeted. It is important the person making the pitch is talking to the right reporter. That means knowing what people cover and what their interests are.

“Make sure you know the media company’s mission,” Jagler said.

All three also said it is still okay to over an exclusive story to one publication.

“It is the same situation as it has always been,” Sabljak said. “It is more challenging to get one in these days of 24/7 news coverage. But, my reporters are paid to get exclusive stories.”

The increasing dominance of technology has made the role of the public relations practitioner more important, Melvin said. A good P.R. person can play a vital role in telling reporters what’s going on. I would add that because there is so much information being circulated that no one person could ever keep track of it. A good, targeted pitch probably has a better chance than ever of getting a reporter’s attention.

While acknowledging that the need to get the news out faster than ever can be strain, all three also said that hasn’t made their staff’s lose perspective.

“We have not lost the ability to do the in-depth story,” Melvin said.

This is the headline from the Dec. 11, 2009 crainsnewyork.com online business magazine: “367 magazines shuttered in 2009.”

The article goes on to report that: “As bad as the news is, the pace of decline appears to have slowed. In 2008, a total of 526 U.S. magazines ceased publication. In 2007, there were 573 that shut down.

The number of titles that folded may actually be higher, said Trish Hagood, president of Oxbridge Communications, parent company of MediaFinder, which describes itself as the largest online database of U.S. and Canadian publications. She explains that it will take until well into the new year to do a final tabulation.”

A knowledge gap is being created

I decided to write this blog because of last week’s announcement that two venerable magazines were shutting down: Editor & Publisher and Kirkus Reviews are being shuttered.

I know neither of these of magazines would be the kind likely to be sold at the grocery store checkout (except maybe for grocery stores in Cambridge, Mass, the lower East Side of New York and Berkley, Calif.). But, they served important purposes in their niches.

The century-old Editor & Publisher covered the newspaper industry. When I started as a reporter in 1975, it was a must read. If you wanted to know what going on in the business, you read E & P. I got my first two reporting jobs from classified ads in the magazine. It was a magazine in which readers’ actually read the ads first, especially the classified job listings.

Kirkus Reviews published over 5,000 book reviews annually. It was an important outlet, especially for new authors. It was often the first public exposure a first novel received. Kirkus was an important resource for bookstore buyers. They would often choose a novel to offer to their customers based on something they read in the magazine.

Personal note: As one who is writing a novel, and hoping to get it published, I mourn the loss of Kirkus. I also mourn the loss of E & P. It was an important press watchdog.

The closing of those two, and other magazines, is creating a knowledge gap.

Magazines used to occupy a unique place in news and information publishing. Newspapers were looked to as a daily source of information. That role has largely been taken over by Web-based news sources, including Twitter. Magazines were the source of the longer, more in-depth pieces. Magazines had the space and time to really tackle a subject. But, they were more immediate than a book.

With the death of so many magazines, a valuable source of explanation and analysis is going away. Oddly, to me at least, many newspapers are trying to turn themselves into daily magazines. They write long investigative stories that often run for several pages. That’s not why people read newspapers. They want to know what’s going on in the neighborhood. People don’t have time to ready long stories in the morning – when newspapers are delivered.

There is a solution

Yeah, you guessed it – I think magazines should be moving on line completely. I know Editor & Publisher has been on-line since the ‘90s. Kirkus is also online.  However, I don’t think either did a very good job of bringing readers to their websites. Like a lot of other publications, I think they saw the websites as an auxiliary to their print editions. It should have been the other way around.

There is precedent for this – the move of soap operas from radio to television in the early 1950s.

A little history first. In 1946, there were approximately 10,000 television sets in the United States, according to questia.com. By 1950, there were 3 million and by 1953, half of all households in the United States had a television. Kind of sounds like the growth of social media, doesn’t it?

Proctor & Gamble started soap operas on radio during the Depression. It was a marketing decision to sell more laundry soap and other products. When television began to dominate, P & G moved the soaps to television. After all, you go where the customers are – which is a rule of social media by the way.

So, why can’t magazines do the same thing? The web is becoming the dominant media – so why not move to the customers are? More and more people are doing their reading online. I still get Sports Illustrated’s print edition, but I also read it online every day. SI and other publications can do more on the web – post videos, run a lot more pictures, link to other relevant sites and be a lot more immediate in their analysis.

I think that move would save a lot of magazines. In cost alone, it would be a good move. No longer would a publisher have to factor the cost of production and printing.

Seems logical to me. Any thoughts anyone?

Note: I will not be posting on either next Monday or Wednesday. It is a holiday week and I am taking some time off. The next blog will run Jan. 4, 2010.

Note for my readers: I am considering giving away five half hour social media, public relations or marketing consultations. That’s right, a free 30 minute discussion about something that will help your business. Doesn’t matter where in the world you are – Skype is a wonderful thing. If you are interested, please leave a comment.

When coordinating news coverage of the war in Afghanistan, ensuring bloggers get the information and access they need is very important to U.S. Air Force Captain David Faggard. To Faggard, bloggers have the same status as any reporter from a traditional print or broadcast outlet.

A blogger himself, Faggard feels that “we have to focus on bloggers. They are an important information outlet. They are kind of like Ernie Pyle in World War II. They tell the personal stories. ”

Faggard heads up the Air Force’s media relations in Afghanistan. Based at Bagram Airfield, Faggard’s official title is Chief, Public Affairs for the 455th Air Expeditionary Wing. He was the Air Force’s first designated point man for social media working for the Secretary of the Air Force’s Office of Public Affairs in the Pentagon before deploying to Afghanistan.

Talking to Faggard was an “aha” moment for me. I know many companies around the world are turning to social media to get their message out. I knew that the military services were dipping their toes into the social media pool. But, I had no idea that the bloggers are now essentially war correspondents and the Air Force is reaching out to them. Bloggers are now on equal footing with any other reporter.

“I have been working with bloggers for about a year-and-half,” Faggard said. “When I was last at the Pentagon, I worked with the approvals to arrange for a blogger to go out with the Hurricane Hunters out of Biloxi, now I’m working a blogger flight to bring average bloggers to the war.”

“Over the last couple of years, the armed forces have tried, in fits and starts, to connect more with bloggers,” Wired Magazine wrote in January. “The Army and the Office of the Secretary of Defense now hold regular “bloggers’ roundtables” with generals, colonels, and key civilian leaders. The Navy invited a group of bloggers to embed with them on a humanitarian mission to Central and South America, last summer. Military blogger Michael Yon recently traveled to Afghanistan with Defense Secretary Robert Gates.”

The Air Force senior brass is still working to decide how to approach and use social media, Faggard said. Still, he says he has a fair amount of leeway in deciding what is okay and what is not. He said he is making strides in convincing his superiors that social media can be a valuable tool for the Air Force.

“In my personal opinion, the military is still trying to figure it out,” Faggard said. “Of course, anyone talking to a blogger, or writing a blog, cannot violate standard Air Force rules. You cannot talk about war plans for instance or about operational plans.

“We are at a crossroads in social media. It is time consuming for a lot of people, but I could see it pushing out the smaller brands of traditional media.”

Like any good officer, Faggard has changed his tactics as the situation changed. He chuckles when he notes his Air Force public affairs training consisted things such topics how to run a press conference. But, he has dealt with bloggers on a regular basis and uploaded videos to YouTube.

“I have never held a press conference in Afghanistan,” Faggard said

There has been a major debate in the Air Force over social media. There was an “old-school mentality” over its use, Faggard said. From talking to Faggard and reading about the Air Force’s social media efforts, I think the senior commanders are having had the same debate many C-suite executives are having. The Air Force commanders are in their late 40s and 50s. They grew up reading newspapers and watching television news. In their worldview, those mediums still dominate. They are not sure about social media, what it is, and what it can do.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I am 55-years-old. But, I do get it.)

Part of the Air Force’s concern is the same thing that concerns many chief executive officers – giving up control of the brand. It has been my experience that is the hardest thing for anyone in a position of control to do. Controlling the message on social media can very difficult. It takes savvy and acumen. Knowing that has to be hard for anyone in a military organization where control is imperative.

However, Faggard and other young officers seem to be making progress convincing their superiors that they need to be part of the social media movement. After meeting with Facebook executives, the Air Force now has a page on the largest social media application. It has a channel on YouTube called AFBlueTube. When I checked, it had almost 250 videos on it. Individuals, such as Faggard and his Pentagon-based commanding officer, are blogging and using other social media applications.

There are rules, of course, but they didn’t strike me as any tougher than those at many U.S. companies. In the Air Force, anyone using social media has to be careful to say whatever they say or write is their personal opinion. Many companies don’t allow their employees to state their own opinions. The Washington Post – a newspaper of all things – just banned its reporters from tweeting their own opinions.

The military has to trust its lower echelon people, Faggard said. When anyone can buy a digital camera for $100 that takes pictures and video, it is probable the average enlisted man is going to use that camera, he said. Those people can be a powerful public relations tool for the military, but showing what is being done in a way no newscaster or reporter ever can.

“We entrust 18-year-olds to fight and die for their country, we can trust them to blog.”

“Of course, people have to know they have to stay in their lane,” Faggard said. “They cannot do something that would endanger their buddies and their unit.

“Of course, if they are the kind of people who break the rules, we don’t want them in the Air Force anyway.”

The Air Force is showing it trusts its people. It now allows them to comment on blog posts. It seems to realize its personnel are best defenders and best ambassadors.

To show their people how to do that, the Air Force now has a “counter-blogging” flow chart, Wired also reported. It is a template for Air Force personnel to respond to negative blog posts and comments. Frankly, I think it would be valuable for a lot of corporations to borrow what the Air Force has done. Rather than ignore negative comments, the Air Force would like its personnel to respond. This is the important part – they want their people respond to comments about the Air Force, especially negative ones. The flow chart is template on how to do that.

Air Force Blog Response Template - Courtesy of Wired Magazine

“The chart was designed to encourage Public Affairs Airmen to engage inaccurate information, just has been done with journalists in the past,” Faggard explained. “There was a feeling that since it was online, we didn’t have the ability to correct the record. This was designed to encourage Airmen to fix the facts.  There are no ulterior motives here; it’s simply to correct the record.”

There is an axiom among military experts that generals always prepare for the next war as if it was the last war they fought. So, what usually happens is the junior officers who are on the ground, such as Faggard, are the ones who convince those generals to make the needed changes. The Air Force’s adoption of social media is a good example of that.

This sight could soon be a thing of the past.

I hate it when I agree with press baron Rupert Murdoch. But The Alien (as the late, great Chicago newspaper columnist Mike Royko called him) is correct. Newspapers should start charging for their online efforts. However, Murdoch’s suggestion is half-uh, planned. In my view, newspapers should stop printing completely and go exclusively on line. Think Kindles and IPods. Throw in a heaping helping of social media and I think newspapers would again be successful. I feel it is going to take something that radical to save quality journalism.

What’s killing newspapers is that the so-called Millennials get their information from the Internet – primarily from social media. They make decisions on purchases by reading other customers’ online comments, and get their news from sites such as Google News, Twitter, Digg and Facebook and go to Craigslist for classified ads. Their lifestyle does not lend itself to reading a newspaper as they sip a cup of coffee at the breakfast table.

Editors around the world have tried valiantly to reach out to those readers. Hiring younger reporters, creating special sections aimed (hopefully) at younger reader’s interest and sponsoring concerts and other events. None of it has worked.

Newspapers need to survive. I could talk watchdogs and the Fourth Estate, Thomas Jefferson and others. But, for the Internet generation, I will provide a major reason. Where do you think all of the aggregated content on news sites comes from? It comes from journalists around the world gathering that information. Who will provide that if news organizations go away?

As marketers, we still need news outlets. It is still one of the best ways to reach potential customers.

“By undermining the financial viability of traditional media, marketers are jeopardizing the only viable means currently available for reaching mass audiences,” Karlene Lukovitz wrote in the Aug. 4 issue of MarketingDaily, “That’s the core premise of “The CMO’s Dilemma: Can You Reach the Masses Without Mass Media?,” a new white paper co-authored by John Rose and Neal Zuckerman of The Boston Consulting Group. Rose and Zuckerman argue that it’s critical that marketers, agencies and media companies start addressing the issues surrounding this dilemma together.”

So, what to do? Well, I would scrap the presses and everything else physical used to produce a newspaper. In their place, I would provide every reader with a Kindle or IPod. I would sell subscribers the electronic reader at a reduced rate and then provide everything from breaking news to crossword puzzles on the Web.

“Wireless can offer newspapers a distribution platform that can provide a new source of revenue, as well as replace revenue loss from a readership transitioning from a physical to a digital product by providing enhanced value,” Mark Desautels, of The Wireless Association wrote in an NAA blog.

I agree and it also would save a lot of money for newspapers, I think. I could not find an aggregated figure for newspaper production costs. But, the Business Insider estimated it costs the New York Times twice as much to print the paper as it would to give all 800,000-plus readers a Kindle. The blog estimates the Times spends approximately $644 million a year in production costs – that’s printing and distribution.

It currently costs $680 a year to subscribe to the New York Times, according to its website. According to Amazon’s website, a Kindle retails for $299. When I was a reporter, it was assumed that four people read each paper. So, the Times would need to procure 200,000 kindles, give or take. I am willing to bet Amazon would discount the price for buying in that kind of bulk. And that’s a one-time expense.

So, the Times cuts $644 million in expenses by going to an electronic only newspaper. It also has the means to reach out to all those Gen-Yers who wouldn’t be caught dead getting newsprint all over their fingers. This is a generation who gets its information from the Internet. So go where they are and give them the news by sending out The Electronic Gazette.

My Electronic Gazette would send out news 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week. There would be podcasts and video. The advantage it would have over current Internet news sites is that it would be news geared toward where it was based. That’s key. It’s easy to get national and international news. What’s hard to find out is what is happening in your community. As newspapers have made cuts, one of the things that has been thrown over the side is in-depth coverage of local news.

It is well documented that newspaper websites are recording millions of hits. The market is already there. It just needs to be monetized.

“Surprisingly, research conducted by Frank N. Magid Associates in June indicates that consumers are willing to pay for access to the content they enjoy,” Lindsey Schutte wrote in the Aug. 7 edition EngageGenY, a Media:Post blog. “In fact, members of Gen Y are more likely to say they will spend money than Gen Xers and Baby Boomers.

“For instance, 80% of Gen Yers say they would pay for music, whereas only 52% of Baby Boomers say the same,” Schutte wrote. “Sixty-nine percent of Gen Yers would pay for professionally produced television programming, whereas only 51% of Baby Boomers say the same. The gap narrows when it comes to news and information, 43% of Gen Yers say they would pay versus 36% of Baby Boomers — but the gap still exists. Paying is defined as exchanging money; it does not include accepting ads for content.”

Social media would need to be part of the mix. I think electronic papers could drive circulation up by social media. If I were the publisher of The Electronic Gazette, I would make sure links our stories were tweeted, Dugg, and were on Friendfeed. I would invite bloggers to link to our site. Facebook would be a big part of my effort. I think social media would deliver the so-called “golden readers” advertisers want: the 18- to 25-year-olds who do not yet have much brand loyalty.

What this would do would be to create a community around the newspaper – the same has been built around Apple or Zappos shoes. Once that happens, newspapers might actually survive.

NOTE TO MY READERS: If you are interested in a free, introductory course on social media, email me. This is the last week I will make this offer. Myself and some other social media acolytes are giving away an EBook written by social media guru Simon U. Ford. Ford sold several thousand of the books for $67. However, we have permission to give it away for a limited time. In addition, you get five free podcasts. We also will be holding a series of four virtual “book clubs” to go over the book. Between the book and the sessions, you will receive a comprehensive overview of social media. Because we want to provide the best possible training, there are 25 spots left. For more information, go to the Social Boomers site. That’s right, we are actually marketing to Boomers – and anyone else who is interested.

For the past two months, I have been blogging about how to deal with the media, how to pitch, how to be interviewed, how to handle a crisis. All important topics. I have been overwhelmed by the response from all of you. I thank you all. I intend to keep doing that.

This week, however, I am going to write what I feel is one of the most important topics of all – the importance of newspapers and why they have to survive. Frankly, a society without newspapers, without watchdogs, scares the heck out of me.

Now, I could write about how crucial newspapers are to the survival of the Republic, but I will leave that for smarter people. What I want to talk about how important newspapers are for those of us in the marketing and public relations business. Without them, our job would be a lot harder to do.

Full disclosure: I spent 26 years as a working reporter in Peoria, Ill., Little Falls, N.Y., suburban Detroit and Milwaukee. I left the business seven years ago because I wanted to do something different.

Newspapers are still important. That’s a simple fact. It’s true that more and more people are turning to the Internet as a source for just about everything. I don’t have to list all of the items people now buy on the ‘Net.  It’s also a source of news about all kinds of things. You are reading this blog on the net.

But, here’s the question – where do you think most of that news and information comes from? You guessed it, it comes from print sources – or least former print sources.  Now, they are online news and information gathering information sources. The same function, just a different way of delivering it. Go to Google News and look at the sources of the stories posted there. All of the stories are from professional information gathering organizations.

That’s the key takeaway for those of us in public relations and marketing. We still should be pitching newspapers, magazines and television with our client stories. At the very least, the story will be put on the Associated Press story list. That gives every newspaper a chance to use the story. Google News will pick it up, guaranteeing a potential audience of millions.

A second reason we marketers still need newspapers is the medias’ ability to aggregate knowledge. Newspaper websites usually contain a lot of information, especially in their archives. It is usually much easier to find information about a particular subject on those websites. Trying finding a particular piece of information on the web. Not easy, is it. Now, think about client’s customer trying to do the same thing.

There is another, even more practical reason. The average of an American chief executive officer was 56.2 years old in 2008. This is a group that is still used to getting their information from the Wall Street Journal, Business Week and other business publications. The person in any corporation who ultimately has to like what you are doing is the CEO. And this group of people likes to see results printed on a piece of paper.

In addition, the professional media is trained to filter knowledge, to know what’s important and what’s not. I value blogs greatly, but I worry sometimes that bloggers don’t always understand don’t have that filter.

Let me deal another issue that often comes up in the discussion: public relations versus advertising. I have heard many marketing professionals say that advertising is just as effective as public relations, maybe more so. Even if newspapers die, we can still advertise on television, the radio and the web. It is just as effective, they argue. All I can say to that is balderdash.

First, free media has much more credibility, as any number of studies have shown. MBA student Idris Mootee demonstrated.People haven’t believed advertisements for a long time. Don’t believe me? Take this simple test I use when clients muse whether public relations or advertising would be better to build their brand platform:

Think about your favorite television advertisement. Think about why you liked it. Got it all? OK, here’s the first question: what was the product being advertised? If you remember, here’s the next second question: would you buy that product?

In the five years or so that I have giving that quiz, I have one person say they would buy the product based on the advertisement. Granted this “study” is anecdotal, and hardly scientific, but I still think the results are significant.  The rhetorical question I respond with is: what’s the point of spending millions and millions of dollars on an advertisement with expensive actors and high production values if it doesn’t exert any influence.

And don’t bring up those cheaper, “home-made” advertisements. They are so bad I cringe. There are products I will not buy because I assume that if the company is not willing to spend money on decent marketing, how good can the product be?

Contrast that with the effects of public relations when it highlights third party endorsements. “Results suggest significant main effects for … endorsement … with endorsement affecting perceived quality, uniqueness, and esteem,” a Sept. 22, 1999 article in the Journal of Advertising said in summarizing the results of a consumer study.

So where do people read about those third party endorsements? Yes, the Internet is certainly an important source. But, I don’t know about you, but I am always a little suspicious of online rankings. I always wonder if the agency or the client had their friends and neighbors respond to the survey. Agencies have been caught having employees fill out surveys. In my career, I have been directed to do that.

Although I know many of you will debate this, most outside writers make every effort to be objective. Most consumers know and take that into account when checking something out. Yes, I know what some studies say, but I still hear people talking about the story from the New York Times they read on line yesterday.

Bottom line, we need newspapers. They provide the kind of outlet we are not going to get anywhere else.

I post this blog every Monday. As a new feature, if you have questions you would like me to answer, please email me. I am always looking for topics and input. My email address is in the next paragraph.

My background: I worked as a reporter for 25 years in central Illinois, upstate New York, suburban Detroit and Milwaukee. I now help clients with marketing communications through my company – JJC Communications LLC. If you want to know more about my company, and myself, click the link. It’ a cliché, but it’s true for me: no job is too big, no job is too small. I have worked with companies on the Fortune 500 list and I have worked with companies that have one employee. The service I provide is the same for all.

I am currently running training courses in new media. I am also available for speaking on media relations and marketing. I can be reached at 414-763-8310 or emailed at jjccomm@wi.twcbc.com.