The one about the demise of Kevin 07

It would be remiss of me to not blog about the state of Australian politics today. I’d like to resist the urge, but along with millions of other bloggers, Twitterers and avid Facebookers, I have an opinion. And I’m mad.

Last night I was at the Young Walkley awards at the Goldfish bar in the Cross, the only PR in a room full of jounos; the editor of the SMH, the heavies from Sky News, ABC and SBS. Latika Bourke who ironically won the Young Journalist of the Year award for her coverage of Malcolm Turnbull’s downfall announced, while accepting her accolade, “Thanks, but I have to go, there’s a breaking story in Canberra, Twitter’s going crazy...” Blackberries suddenly appeared as though the world were about to end. Those less dedicated to the Fourth Estate remained more interested in the open bar.

Back to Kevin. Our most popular PM, the Labor party prodigal son, the man who Australians embraced like no other political figure before, following 11 years of boring Liberal government. Make no mistake; Kevin Rudd was elected by the Australian people. And he did a lot for our country. Have we forgotten his steady hand throughout the economic crisis, the apology to indigenous Australians, hospital reform? I was proud to have Kevin as our PM, he restored our national image, spoke out about the slaughter of whales and refused to tow the hardline on refugees. At least Kevin got climate change on the agenda, more than can be said for many others before him. Yes mistakes were made, but John Howard continued to mislead the Australian public throughout his four terms, yet we forgave him – many times over.

I’m a fair-weather feminist; in the sense that I get on my soapbox regularly about equality for women, but I wouldn’t dare get on ladder to change a light bulb or be the one to take out the rubbish. I do not embrace our first female PM. I am, in fact, ashamed. I want my first female PM to be voted in, based on integrity and policy. Her takeover was weak, sneaky and underhand. Was Rudd such a bad PM that he deserved this national embarrassment?

The only thing that made me proud to be Australian today; Tim Cahill running around the soccer pitch, topless, in a crazy green and gold hat, embracing his teammates and Pim, and comforting a devastated Lucas Neil. It was heart-warming.

The one about citizen journalism

Think back to the Mumbai terrorist attack of November 2008; the images splashed across the Internet, the first-hand accounts of Aussie expats and the Twitter updates that impacted our work day. We watched the whole thing unfold on our desktops, and when desired, our mobile phones. There was no need to so much as get up and switch on a TV.

The onslaught of digital news begs the question, are we sanitised to the images of war and terrorism due to the over-exposure new media allows?

More importantly, has the role of citizen journalist, born from the accessibility of social media, made the role of ‘traditional’ journalist near redundant in the online world? The standing of journalism in the online world impacts the relationship between public relations professional and journalist. As the role of media changes through digital mediums, information can no longer be owned or be relied on to derive to client key messages advocated through mass media outlets. Online news is immediate, complicated and near impossible to control.

In stark comparison to Mumbai, during the 9-11 terrorist attack, coverage was streamed through mass media outlets, dominated by 24/7 TV footage. CNN anchors deciphered the news agenda and packaged the global impact of the terrorist attack on the international community in convenient 30 minute news bulletins.

The increased role of digital media in news consumption has had a direct impact on the perceived transparency of war. The Gulf War of the early 1990s is a case in point; with the ground deemed ‘too dangerous’ for the embedded journalist, news operators were provided with government footage and fed information via press conferences.

However fast forward 20 years and the reality couldn’t be very different. Late last month when Israeli special forces stormed a flotilla of six ships carrying aid for the blockaded Gaza killing nine Turks on board, international condemnation was sparked and various global protests organised immediately after.

Heralded as the Fourth Estate and sworn to uphold the ideal of impartiality, it will be interesting to see how the journalist function, and the relationship with the PR profession will continue as digital mediums impact news delivery. Kate xo

The one with the photos from home

The one about segmenting virtual audiences

Digital communications – it’s a bandwagon with serious cred that agencies and in-house comms teams are jumping on. While the potential is uncharted and limited only by the capabilities of practitioners, the commitment of managers and the applicable campaign objectives, how much of an understanding do we really have of this popular medium and its associated virtual communities?

PR agencies are implementing digital strategy and building specialised teams at a rate of knots, but there is almost a feeling that digital strategy has to be built into a campaign because that’s the way things are going. Key to disseminating the capacity of the digital shift is the role of virtual audiences in campaign implementation.

Strategy is the result of research and audience segmentation. While touch points for virtual communities may appear obvious, identifying the demographics of these communities is a challenge for practitioners. Ordered 'tick boxes' are not always apparent. A virtual community can be an influential individual or a mobilised mass united through a common cause. They do not always possess an obvious unifier i.e. community group, club or workplace. They are savvy, organised and influential while others have sporadic interactions in the digital sphere.

Two-way communication and relationship building are best practice for engaging with virtual communities, but what happens when this is not always possible? Regulatory bodies across specific practices make two-way communications very difficult, particularly in the healthcare space. For instance, pharmaceutical code limits pharma companies in the social media space. According to law, if a member of the public reports a concern with a medication on a website hosted by the drug maker, they are legally bound to respond to the enquiry within 48 hours. This means that any Facebook or Twitter presence would need to be monitored 24/7 – an impossible task.

An example is the 50 years of the Pill campaign by Bayer Schering Pharma. To comply with all relevant medical codes, public interaction was limited to a simple voting mechanism on the Facebook page. While an effective compromise, does this defeat the purpose of the Facebook presence?

To answer, in short, it was recognised that a digital arm was needed for this campaign due to the sheer importance of this milestone, but it would have been against regulatory code to harness Facebook for open dialect. The campaign was therefore tailored to become a charity initiative that raised money through a voting mechanism – meaning the charitable donation created a virtual community in itself.

Virtual communities will become an increasingly necessary audience to engage with, as the future of digital expands at a rate few of us can keep up with. While impossible to control or predict, specific plans need to be put in place to establish ongoing dialect with influential virtual communities as a proactive measure that will reap long-term client benefits no end.

The one about the ethics of online honesty; where do you draw the line?

One of the biggest scandals to hit Australian sport has posed a question greater than that of homosexuality in the locker room. ‘Aker-gate’ as it is fast becoming known, has challenged the freedom of speech of sporting identities and whether it’s ethical for their opinions to be pre-approved by third parties or sanitised to toe a particular line.

Two weeks ago, when Jason Akermanis, former Brownlow medallist and renowned AFL loud mouth suggested gay men stay in the closet in his weekly column for The Herald Sun, an unprecedented debate was ignited by sport lovers, the gay community and the general public. Seven related articles on http://www.news.com.au/ have attracted no less than 68 commments each in the past two weeks.

As a consequence, the Western Bulldogs has put a media ban on their veteran forward. However, even prior to this sanction, Akermanis’ columns were subject to a rigorous approval process by his club and the AFL. It is interesting to note that as Akermanis’ career winds down and his popularity sours, his media contracts provide a greater source of income than his playing contract.

Akermanis is renowned for his unwelcome frankness about upcoming opponents and the form of his teammates. Unwilling, or unable to curb his media activities, Aker’s playing career reached a considerable low at his former club when a comment arose on his blog describing then-coach Leigh Matthews as a "f***wit". He never played another game for the Brisbane Lions. It seems that what the player saw as honesty in an online forum, the club saw as destructive disloyalty.

Off-field, he is equally as colourful, learning sign language so he can converse with his hearing impaired in-laws, he speaks Spanish, plays chess and has an ideas whiteboard in his house. Surely a player as interesting as Akermanis does not deserve to have his blog shut down? Two key issues arise around ethics in online communication in this instance.

In an online world where so much of what we say is sanitised, Akermanis goes out on a limb. He has the playing ability and sheer flamboyancy to back it up. Ethically where does the responsibility lie; does Aker have to choose a media career or football and should his comments be regulated because his opinions are not a reflection of the club? Restricting the comments of a colourful character may help to create unity, but is it good for the sport?

Or, is it ethical for Akermanis to provide commentary on the performance of his players or the relationship break-down with his former club on a blog?

Aker-gate follows the sacking of The Age journalist Catherine Deveny after her Logies tirade against the likes of Bindi Irwin and Rove McManus. The ethics of this online controversially seem to be a more black and white scenario; Denevy was sacked immediately. Her blog belonged to The Age. Akermanis writes as a football personality, not as a forward for the Bulldogs.

Given that we spend so much of our time with our work colleagues, the question does arise as to how far our online opinions reflect our employers? How much should our activities on social networks be a sanitised version of our belief systems and observations to comply with company policy or norm? At what expense do we entertain our online followers?