In March of 2009 I wrote a blog post (Why more politicized news anchors are a good thing) about why I thought the concept of objective journalism and mass media was a bit more fiction than fact, and that “the politicization of reporting is just an example of how media organizations are scuttling the mold of ‘neutral observer’ and identifying more with ideologies as a means to attract specific demographics of viewers.”

The approach acknowledges, at least in theory, that the traditional mass media organizations realize they are not really about mass media anymore, and that they need to specialize and direct their news and coverage and perspective to a specific audience.

Of course, as I wrote back in March, this does have its advantages – particularly in competitive media landscape we find ourselves in today – by enabling an organization to not be all things to all people and instead use limited resources to provide the highest quality product to its target audience.

This is provided, of course, that there is transparency from the broadcaster / news source. Without transparency, you run the real risk of being exposed as dishonest and end up alienating more people than you would have if you simply acknowledged your perspective or slant from the very beginning. A slant or an angle is one thing, but when you act like you have something to hide, people often think you do. And if people feel you are trying to deceive them – your slant is irrelevant, because your entire report is now questionable.

What is fascinating about this is how it relates to ABC and its coverage of the health care debate and President Obama’s plan. If you recall, back in June, ABC provided President Obama with a lot of time to discuss his health care proposal during ABC’s Primetime and on Nightline. Many dismissed the program or were critical of it as nothing more than an infomercial, because no opposition perspectives were included in either program. Not even an opposing commercial. At the time, ABC defended its approach. Even Nightline host, Diane Sawyer, said that ABC’s format and focus on the health care issue had little to do with the marketability of Obama.

Sawyer’s comment is a bit disingenuous.

According to research by the National Center for Public Policy Research, revealed in Amy Ridenour’s Newsbusters story, “ABC News Advertising Review May Explain Why Conservatives Were Locked Out of Health Care Shows”, commercials run on ABC were dominated by member companies of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) trade association. PhRMA is a significant backer of President Obama’s health care plan.

In point of fact, in the 98 broadcast days of ABC World News the National Center determined that ABC’s World News featured 1,102 commercials, 597 (almost 55%) of which were placed by PhRMA members.

If we assume that media companies are targeting specific demographics now for their media coverage (a directive that comes from its executive leadership), it stands to reason they are going after advertisers that appeal to their audience, just as they will offer programs and special reports that meet the interests of both their target audience and advertiser base. Naturally, if their advertisers are behind an initiative – why wouldn’t ABC tap into the most marketable spokesman of that cause in an effort to appease their advertisers and their audience? It’s a win-win for all sides.

So, at the end of the day, ABC’s decision to air the pro-Obamacare programming had everything to do with marketing and the station’s effort to secure a specific demographic of viewer.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that!

The problem I have is that Diane Sawyer and executives at ABC were not honest or transparent about what they were doing. ABC could have aired the program, discussed the issues and disclosed their financial stake in the plan. Instead, the network fell into a classic trap. ABC was so concerned that people would not perceive the network as an unbiased and credible source of news (remember, people were calling these programs infomercials), that it tried to act like a mass media company and dismiss what everyone saw in the hopes that no one would see it. It ended up making ABC look worse in the process.

ABC has a financial stake in the success of Obama’s health care plan. ABC also has a strategy to reach an audience that is largely favorable to left-wing policies. So, ABC should have no problem airing a program with Obama about his plan.

But by pretending to be something they are not, ABC is not fully adapting to its new mission or to become appealing to the type of viewer they ultimately want to reach.

In yet another series of examples from the real world, we’re reminded of the power of social media and people to not only expose fraud, but also demand accountability.

Larissa Fair of Livingston Communications tweeted on an AP story that appear on CNN.com (Faked tiger photo sparks Web furor) recently about the use of a fake tiger in what appeared by the Chinese online community to be another example of the government ignoring common sense and using false images and lies in their never-ending propaganda campaign.

The story is a simple example of fraud. A poor farmer, responding to a contest, used a poster of a tiger and placed it in various angels in the forest. Using a digital camera, the farmer created the appearance that there was, indeed, a tiger in the woods. However, the shininess of the image and the fact that tiger never changed its pose or position, despite being photographed from multiple directions, immediately fueled speculation of a fraud.

(Xinhua)

The government, however, thought they had a propaganda coup on their hands. Instead of investigating the possibility of a fraud and the growing skepticism online, the local / regional Chinese government used the image’s popularity to promote tourism to an economically depressed area. When the challenges to the image’s authenticity grew, the government did not back down – remaining resolute in its affirmation. Ultimately, the pictures were so wildly recognized as a fraud, that government had no choice but to admit as much.

But the damage had been done.

The result of a poor farmer’s desire to make money from a government-run contest for photographs that showed proof of the rare animal’s existence, and the government’s effort to allegedly boost tourism to an impoverished part of the country with a story of a rare tiger sighting, only furthered the mistrust many of China’s citizens have for their government.

In a country where the disparity in wealth from those who live in rural regions compared to the cities is substantial, citizens were fairly forgiving of the farmer, who the government later punished for fraud. However, they were less forgiving of the government which failed to hear protests or assertions from the online community that the photo was faked, and later refused to accept real responsibility for the spread of the photo – only offering a meek acknowledgment that the photo was not genuine.

When a tribe and ethics are LOST

Another example occurred with the now infamous “lost tribe” photographed a few months ago. The media picked up on the photographs, and reporters identified the tribe as being undiscovered and not having interacted with people outside of their tribe.

(Gleison Miranda, Funai /AP Photo)

After some investigation by The Guardian, the photographer revealed that the tribe was not lost, but indeed had been known for over two decades. His efforts to demonstrate their presence was an attempt to force “Peru to re-examine its logging policy in the border area where the tribe lives.” The pictures were taken, he had said, to help draw attention to them and discourage development that may poach on tribal territory.

Many media outlets were hesitant to identify what many were considering a hoax and issue a retraction. So much publicity had been made of the discovery – some news outlets were fearful of admitting to having been duped.

After the Guardian story came out and more media began to call the discovery a hoax, the organization that employed the photographer, Survival International, protested the Guardian’s characterization of the tribe being “lost”. According to a piece on ABC.com, Survival International’s director Stephen Corry said in response that “The [Guardian] article claims to ‘reveal’ that the tribe photographed was neither ‘lost’ nor ‘unknown.’ The reality is that neither Survival nor the Brazilian government claimed they were.”

So, who is REALLY at fault here?

The mass media is at fault for not fully vetting the story, but at the end of the day, Survival International bares the most blame for the characterization of the story and also its fall-out. Just because Survival International never said the tribe was “lost”, full disclosure in a discovery of that nature is paramount. Making a more detailed disclosure after release of the news created the appearance that the organization, much like the Chinese farmer and the government, had perpetuated a fraud. Parsing a few words and being “technically” correct, however subtly, is not a valid excuse anymore.

What do both examples teach us?

What I found interesting about both stories is that they remind us how fast information can travel on the internet, and how important listening to your audience and taking responsibility can be.

While the Chinese government claims to have learned from the situation, the only real lesson is that command and control does not work when people have access to the internet and social media tools. As much as the government works to suppress communication, it continues to fight a losing battle and in the process, alienates itself from its citizens prompting revolt both virtually and in reality (one wonders why the US does not employ the same strategy with Cuba, but that’s a blog post for another day).

Survival International had a strong opportunity to draw attention to its core mission, but failed by not providing enough information and making sure media outlets received the full story. At the end of the day, a fascinating discovery and the plight of indigenous tribes in the Amazon was overshadowed by weather or not Survival International and its photographer had misled the world.