On Tuesday, October 16^th, Steven Colbert of “The Colbert Report” made a fantastic revelation regarding CNN’s marketing strategy for their newest series, “Planet in Peril”.  He states:

“CNN is so committed to raising awareness of the depletion of our natural resources; they put a 6 foot square poster in each of the 2.3 Million copies of today’s USA Today. That is 13.8 Million square feet of planetary peril. Now the paper is recycled. But hopefully, that glossy ink isn’t going to biodegrade anytime soon, so awareness of this threat is going to be around for centuries! Brilliant marketing CNN! You have strategically ensured that the planet will still be in peril by the time your special airs next week!” Click here to see the clip.

Colbert points out a well hidden, two-faced aspect of the media here that is often overlooked by the public.  The most effective way to explain this is to imagine the old angel and demon cliché.  On one shoulder is an angel that dictates nothing but integrity. Shows like “Planet in Peril” are created as an attempt to resolve Earth’s problems through public awareness. It is this side of the media that wants to change the world.  But no angel is without a demon, and it seems that the demon on big media’s left shoulder is who really runs the show. Unfortunately he’s in it for the money. On this side of the spectrum, specials like “Planet in Peril” are created solely for big profit. Media uses a fear + marketing equation to spike ratings, and the “Planet in Peril” aspect of their campaign is used mainly as a publicity stunt. If CNN thought otherwise, 2.3 million glossy advertisements would have never been printed and sent out within the folds of USA Today. Instead, their intense focus on saving the planet would have directed their advertising efforts elsewhere, thus saving our recycled resources for something far more useful than a glossy poster.

So why create a segment related to saving the earth and then contradict its purpose by wasting resources that should be used for something far more important? Because a disintegrating earth puts fear into our hearts, and fear is what sells in the media. How better to strike fear into the eyes of potential viewers than to send 2.3 million advertisements out to USA Today readers about the earth’s slow deterioration? Nothing is more effective.

This is not an aspect of the media the public is apt to notice, and we are far too lost in the glossiness of CNN’s advertisements to care.  All we know is that the planet is in peril, and CNN is our main resource in helping to save it. So that being said, what channel is CNN on again?

This is spin in its most ugly regard.  - Chris Thonis

Here we go again!

O.J. Simpson, the man who went from “Trying Harder” for Avis to transfixing a nation as his Ford Bronco raced the California freeways, is at it again.  And just as we’ve come to expect, his recent Las Vegas arrest captivates headlines that reach far beyond the tabloids.  Do we really care?

When Anna Nicole Smith died, the media could not stop themselves.  Recently, her daughter celebrated her first birthday in bigger-than-life-Elvis-style.  And again, from Entertainment Tonight to the Chicago Tribune, the story captured headlines for two weeks.

Britney Spears finally lost custody of her children with K-Fed proving to the courts that he will make for a better parent.  In markets coast-to-coast, this week it was the lead, breaking story even as the President vetoed the S-CHIP health care program that leaves millions of children without access to vaccines, doctors, or hospital care. 

Last week, the Guinness Book of World Records for 2008 touted its annual winners.  What’s the most popular television show in the world?  CSI: Miami.  Ironically, this week’s episode spun the pop culture tale of a young woman made into a celebrity by bloggers, cutthroat reporters, and crazed paparazzi clamoring to track her every move.

Whether watching Emmy-winning Boston Legal, Law and Order, or Brothers and Sisters, there’s a dangerous but often realistic portrayal of how the legitimate media cover courtroom drama and how camera phones stalk the every move of provocative characters.

There’s part of me that just wants to scream, and another part that empathizes.

For decades, public relations professionals have been accused of spinning stories and distorting truth.   And at the same time, journalists – both professional and citizen reporters – proclaim their First Amendment rights to show and tell the full story – even if it is only titillating and provocative, and not news at all.

It’s time to broaden the conversation about the Fight Against Destructive Spin.  Who is spinning the spin?  And why, as a society, are we such willing consumers?  – Shawn Kahle

I am so sick of celebrities and their publicists exposing themselves for a little salacious publicity. The Paris debacle and those following her have been overshadowed by another newcomer, Vanessa Hudgens, 18, who just so happens to be the star of The Walt Disney Company’s hugely lucrative High School Musical franchise. Vanessa’s nude pictures were distributed all over the Internet last week, causing Disney and her publicists to work overtime.  Hudgens has confirmed that they are real, stating, “It is a personal matter and it is unfortunate that this has become public.” Some speculate this was the result of her publicist wanting to further Vanessa’s career and place her in mature movie roles. Disney said quickly that it was sticking with the 18-year-old star despite her “lapse in judgment”. Disney might have made a wise decision, fearing mothers across American would have to explain to their daughters why their favorite Disney idol was no longer on television.  What makes this newsworthy and why are the media, including credible outlets, eating this up?  —  Kristina Burn

Let’s look at Al Gore who is again on the receiving end of criticism for taking a private jet to ponder this question. On the one hand, Gore has influenced the environmental debate arguably more than any elected politician this century (whose job it is to illustrate and react to such public issues). Al’s movie is far more successful than a similar attempt by Leonardo DiCaprio on the issue of global sustainability. If box office returns are any indication, Al has beaten a movie star in the movie business and started a flurry of spin offs. While an Inconvenient Truth serves as a environmental touchstone for many worldwide, his detractors are quick to point out he is still taking private jets and the political paparazzi are often there to catch it. Witness exhibit A below. This shot made the front page of the Drudge Report  recently with this in the body of the story  FOXNEWS host Sean Hannity is set to unleash the damning video this Sunday night, network sources reveal.

Al Gore has long been a person in the privileged class. He was Vice President of the United States which requires gas guzzling motorcades and a team of humans to mobilize every time he wants to visit a Dunkin’ Donuts. People knew this about him during his bid for the election and before purchasing, downloading, pirating or renting his jazzed up power point feature film. In short, his environmental transgressions are not “new”only slightly different depending on what jet he takes. Should this be covered with such consistency? On balance, has he contributed enough to the global warming debate enough to earn a collective pass? Are all iterations of slight hypocrisy worthy of coverage more than, say, the opinions of 2,100 CEOs as seen in the Q3 Vistage Confidence Index?  Or do you think he deserves the negative attention? Is he becoming the political Paris Hilton where every new ice cream cone ordered is a story? This blog is interactive. You tell us, spin or legitimate coverage? – Jason Damata

I am so glad that somebody is finally going to start looking into drug commercials.  These advertisements play with my mind.

Are you tired?  Yes.  Do you find it hard to concentrate a full nine hours at work?  Sometimes.  Do you drink more than one cup of coffee a month?  Yes.  Do you want to be happy and carefree like this person in our commercial?  YES.

Then I start thinking, maybe I do have restless leg syndrome.  It must be a miracle drug, look how happy they are!

OK, maybe I am not that naïve, but apparently some people are.  According to Associated Press, the FDA is conducting research to see if “drug ads are distracting consumers from carefully considering and encoding risk information”.  They are in fear of people relating the happy and relaxed images on screen to themselves, and not paying attention to the risks and side effects of the actual drug.

Television drug commercials are “supposed to” help inform people about diseases and treatments, according to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.  And pharmaceutical drug companies are “supposed to” show the good and bad of each drug.

So has advertising gone too far?  Are they trying to sell their product no matter what it takes?  Should there be stricter guidelines and more restrictions? — Molli Megasko

I recently read an article by Jim Schembri –from the entertainment section of theage.com.au– which is cleverly entitled “Even with De Niro on Menu, PR is hard to stomach.”  I feel as if this article hits the nail right on the head. Several times, actually.  It addresses the all-too-familiar phenomenon that is the public’s overzealous reaction to celebrities; only it does so with a very appropriate twist.  In the article, Schembri doesn’t differentiate the media from the general public by putting each of them into distinct subcultures of sorts. Instead, he actually owns up to the fact that, contrary to popular belief, journalists aren’t completely immune to the star-struck bug after all. Because of this, he suggests that journalistic duties are often compromised in the presence of Hollywood greatness.

As it turns out, prior to the start of a press conference for the opening of one of Robert De Niro’s restaurants, everyone in the room was instructed not to ask him any questions about movies. Schembri said it best: “This was like saying “ladies and gentleman, we’re about to bring out Jesus Christ. But please, no questions about religion or His dad.”  To Schembri’s surprise, every journalist in the room blindly obeyed these story-limiting instructions.  Did this happen out of fear? Was it out of respect?  Or was it simply a result of those in the room being completely star-struck?

Reporters asked Mr. De Niro all sorts of obscure questions about food as if he had unique taste bud receptors that could keenly detect the best flavors imaginable, when in reality, apart from being an A-list movie star, Robert De Niro is no different than you or me.  On top of this, as far as science goes, there is no proof that his taste-testing abilities surpass those of the average man.  So, why would people really care to hear his thoughts on the quality of his restaurant’s food?  Hmmm… I think even my six-year-old cousin would have a decent response to this rhetorical question.

People care about what celebrities have to say because they admire their work. With this in mind, wouldn’t it make sense to try to somehow weave news about De Niro’s upcoming career moves into an article about his restaurant?  I certainly think so. When journalists fail to address all of the appropriate questions then, in a sense, they lose credibility and compromise an otherwise great story.  Celebrity hype and the –often times– hollow spin that goes along with it, if reacted to improperly, does nothing more than taints media coverage.  It’s crucial for people in the PR industry to ask all of the right questions; it certainly doesn’t hurt to think outside the box and push the envelope from time to time… Even in the presence of greatness. 

When all is said and done, celebrity spin is deceivingly insubstantial when it stands alone. Believe it or not, it takes a lot more than an inflated headliner name such as De Niro to piece together an article worth reading.  Some names in Hollywood do indeed speak for themselves; but those names certainly can’t write decent articles or promote events all by themselves. — Zach Crantz

According to a new report released by the Assciated Press, 99 U.S. soldiers killed themselves last year.  This is the highest rate of suicide in the Army in 26 years.  This statistic speaks for itself and is a tremendously sad thing to read.

But following the release of this report, there are questions to ask. How is the U.S. Army and the U.S. government going to smooth this over with the American public?  We’re in a time of war. And more importantly, we’re in a war that doesn’t exactly have the overwhelming support of all Americans. So, while this report is an unwelcome reminder of what war brings with it, you have to wonder how this is going to be spun.

These findings are devastating, to say the very least.  These findings evoke emotion in a reader.  These findings are enough to make people act on such emotion.  And that’s the last thing the Army and the government need.

Any negative news, especially news with the effect of this report, is countered in some way.  There’s always an explanation or a reminder of why something happened.  But in the end, it’s all spin.  There’s no way to get around it. Negative news presented to the public through the media is generally, if not always, followed by a spin on the original story attempting to display the story in a positive light.

How can this type of spin be stopped? And how can the Equal Time Rule (part of the Fairness Doctrine) be legitimate in the eyes of spin? — Angela Loiacono