Jackson's Death: Media Messages Changed by a Moment

Michael Jackson's sudden, suspicious, and untimely, death spawned a level of news coverage seldom equaled and even more rarely surpassed. Depending on your age, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the assassination of President Kennedy, and the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, bring back vivid memories of non-stop news reports on radio and TV. In their own times, those three stories were as big as it gets. Close behind and similar, in news value, to Jackson's death were Marilyn Monroe, Elvis, John Lennon, and Princess Diana, who all died of unnatural causes. Jackson's official cause of death is pending, as toxicology findings will take more time. But the big difference, this time, is the role of the internet.

First news of Jackson's death surfaced on the TMZ website. The story was unconfirmed but, we now know, clearly correct. Once the LA Times began reporting Jackson's death other MSM (mainstream media), picked it up. Because TMZ, ET, Extra, Access Hollywood, and other syndicated entertainment "news" programs are taped in Los Angeles fairly early in the day, some struggled to update the programs, with varying degrees of success for east coast viewers. On local news channels, and the network evening newscasts, the story played prominently and consumed most of the day's airtime. Later in the evening, network specials and extended coverage continued.

Michael's talent, fame, and colorful history--along with widely available and abundant video--combined to create the ultimate television era story. TV was integral to Jackson's success. His music videos are among the most breathtaking and innovative ever produced. He also came of age during a period when television was unchallenged as the leading medium for the dissemination of popular culture. But as the world wide web grew in influence Michael's popularity benefited as well.

Now the internet and web enabled portable media are more dramatically shifting the balance of power in terms of how we get our news. But one new medium does not entirely replace older media. Typically, the hierarchy of influence may shift along with the demand for one over the other. But radio and TV did not put the movies or newspapers out of business; television did, however, change everything as it came of age, including the pecking order and roles older media play in our lives. Big stories, like the death of Michael Jackson can accelerate these changes and also help us understand and focus on what is happening as it happens. As the story was unfolding, websites--Google, TMZ, Jackson's own official website--all experienced service issues due to the heavy interest in the story. Social networking giants Facebook and Twitter also reported big spikes in activity. The web's influence on this story represents one of those moments where everything changes in terms of media impact.

With video now a routine feature of the internet, the death of the King of Pop serves as an even more important turning point for the web. Viewing Jackson's highly produced videos on a computer, Blackberry, or iPhone is a far different experience than watching the same video on a large LCD hi-def screen with hi-fidelity surround sound. So watching the same video on different media is really not watching the same video at all.

Smart media executives, who understand these differences, can create different "events" to give readers, website users, and TV viewers complementary experiences. Creating news organizations that understand this, and recognize how to use each different medium in the manner most appropriate will be able to move multi device consumers between programs in ways that will be financially rewarding because they serve the customer so well.

For example, when the big story breaks, you get notified on your Blackberry, and directed to a website. Once you are there you get the basic facts along with whatever quick video presentations are available. When you get home, or back to the office, you can get updated content on your computer, including clips of whatever video has been compiled. More highly produced content, music videos, for example, in the case of Jackson, could be downloaded for playback on large screens and high quality sound systems. While all of this is happening, news specials are being produced that include the higher quality content. For pure tributes to the artistry of the likes of Michael Jackson, the highest quality audio and video content become part of follow-up specials, presented in high definition with 5.1 audio.

Some may recognize this as the current reality. On a limited level that’s true. But the coordination of media platforms happening routinely or regularly has not effectively become part of news and media organizations' every day way of doing business. More often it's the result of a big story such as the death of a cultural icon whose work is well documented and highly produced serving as the wake up call for what can--and should--happen on more mundane stories, almost every day.

Looking Ahead, Again

Last week's blog on the economics of experience and the benefits of age (scroll down to read it) mentions an Op Ed piece I wrote for the San Diego Union Tribune, nine years ago. In case you were unable to access it I will paste the text to the end of this blog. It is interesting to read it, nine years later. Most of the comments hold up. The only thing I might change is my too harsh appraisal of the CBS morning program. On most days, The Early Show, on CBS, is as good--or bad--as Today and Good Morning America. In the ratings order nothing has changed; CBS is still in third place. But all three old line morning shows are still too similar to distinguish themselves. On many days we find them unwatchable, unless you're interested in an exploration of despicable behavior or freakish heroics masquerading as news. The problem is not that the morning programs cover so many unseemly acts and pathetic stories of human suffering, it is that they do so incessantly. The life of these stories is prolonged beyond their importance or, quite frankly, their interest to viewers. It's not all bad and we still watch until we can't watch anymore. On some days, when there is real news, the morning programs do a fine job. It's just that they could be so much better.

Perhaps the best examples of what could and should be are Sunday Morning on CBS, which continues to be an outstanding program, and 60 Minutes, revitalized and doing some of its best work in years. That nine year old piece, below, addresses the reason why 60 Minutes is better now than it was a few years ago.

So here's my piece from May 23, 2000, as it appeared in the San Diego Union Tribune.

Before we begin, two disclosure items:

1. I love television.

2. Television stations and networks paid my salary for 26 years, first as a news producer and later as an executive.

Quite frankly, I'm disappointed. Despite what some critics have said over the years, television has been a positive force in our country. It has, to paraphrase Edward R. Murrow, informed, entertained and at times, enlightened us. We now have more choices than ever. From infomercials about "ab-rollers" to university produced forums on science, the breadth of offerings is wider than ever. With the advent of digital technology, the possibilities for the future are even more exciting. So why am I disappointed?

The engineers and scientists who develop today's incredible technologies are way ahead of the folks who provide "content" for television. The best and brightest producers follow the money. The folks with the money want more money. Nothing wrong with that. The idea is sound. Invest in good programming. People will watch and the folks with money will make more money. Where it falls apart is that the money folks want to play it so safe they invest in copies of what worked, yesterday.

It's appalling -- that's not too strong a word -- that the three network morning programs are carbon copies of one another. It's also not surprising that the CBS entry is a dismal failure. Do we really need three New York-based broadcasts that feature shots of Manhattan streets outside their studios?

And it's not just the morning shows. When network executives discovered news magazines could be run profitably several times a week, the three old-line networks went nuts. Do we really need three "Datelines," multiple "20/20s," and another "60 Minutes?"

These are all good television programs. That's not the point. When they become assembly line enterprises, they lose their specialness. Eventually, the viewers start finding other programs to watch.

By far the biggest success story of the current TV season is ABC's "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" Viewers love it. Families watch together. Regis does a great job. It's a fun show, for a number of reasons. Again, FOX's "Greed" and NBC's "Twenty One" aren't as entertaining or successful.

Local news, where I labored most of my career, follows the same disappointing pattern. Innovation is rare. The two new entries, in San Diego, look younger than their more established competitors. But, despite overt and obvious stylistic excesses at the FOX affiliate -- which are not always bad -- the content agenda remains predictable and overly dependent on police scanners.

For commercial television to realize the potential of the new technologies, owners will have to break away from the copy-cat mentality of recent years. Owners, these days, are the biggest companies in the world. GE/NBC, Disney/ABC, News Corp./FOX, Viacom/ CBS, all have tremendous resources. For financial enterprises of such great magnitude to take creative chances requires a likelihood of success and profit. Maybe it's time they figured out that we don't need three versions of the same programs.

I still love television. When the good shows work, it's magic. When the news media cover important events in compelling fashion, it brings us together as a community and a nation. In times of crisis, it's even life-saving. And programming that celebrates the best in us serves our common good. In the face of cynical politics and our everyday struggles, these scientific, dramatic, cultural and journalistic diversions remind us to aspire to excellence.

What we need now are leaders in the media world who will encourage creative risk taking. Obviously, good programming is profitable. And in the language of the new world of media ownership, that's not beside the point. It is the point.

(End of May 23, 2000 Op Ed)

My point, then and now, is that whatever the economic pressures, saving money alone will not provide long-term success for the industry. Only by creating a culture of creativity and excellence will television thrive and grow.

The Economics of Experience

As my 58th birthday came and went a few weeks ago, the thought of a new career became more exciting than ever. My former career, as a television news executive and producer, formally ended 11 years ago. I chose to leave because the problems afflicting television stations and networks were clear to me back then. I even wrote about it and got the piece published in the San Diego Union Tribune (If you’re a UT subscriber you can find the Op Ed piece in the archive; it’s from May 23, 2000. You can also access the UT archive for a fee, if you don’t subscribe). Since then I’ve worked in related fields as a consultant helping clients achieve success by using new media effectively, along with older technologies including TV, newspapers, and radio. Since the economy slowed, toward the end of 2007, finding new clients has become increasingly difficult. And my recent efforts to get back into TV news have been met with a consistently polite lack of acceptance, from potential employers.

During the last year, I’ve noticed more of my contemporaries out of work. Most would rather be working. In a few cases their chosen fields have passed them by; things are done differently now. But in the overwhelming majority of situations it is something else that has all these 50 and 60 somethings looking for jobs. There is a lack of appreciation for experience and a fundamental failure to recognize why older workers add value.

The most dramatic example of experience over youthful inexperience would be the outcomes of two recent midair emergencies on commercial flights. A 57 year old, Capt. Chesley Sullenberger landed a crippled US Air jet in the Hudson River with no loss of life. Less than a month later, a Continental Express Commuter flight crashed in Buffalo, New York, killing everybody onboard. As we now know, the Buffalo crash was partially the result of pilot inexperience, while the so called “Miracle on the Hudson” happened, in large measure, because the man flying the plane had more than 30 years experience.

Even if our jobs don’t involve the safety of others, the benefits of experience add value to most enterprises. Obviously, certain careers require youth. But most of my friends, who would rather be working, lost their jobs, after years of experience, because they earned good salaries. What the leaders doing the cutting failed to realize is that, in most cases, losing experienced workers weakens their organizations.

Television news is the field I know best. It is not a coincidence that the falling ratings over the last decade are the result of a less watchable product, caused in part by the lack of experience younger workers bring to the task of producing and presenting newscasts. Yes, there are many other reasons TV news is not the powerful force it used to be. The most obvious is competition from the internet and other newer technologies that provide news. But that is precisely the point. Instead of embracing the new technologies, the entrenched leadership of old media clung stubbornly to what they knew best.

Now here’s the tricky part, this has little to do with the age of workers. Two experienced media vets whom I know and respect—both in their 60s—were among the earliest adopters of new technology. Another person I know, an out-of-work woman in her 50s, also understands the new technologies as well as the Gen X, Gen Y, and Millenial crowd. What these three individuals add to their tech know-how is the experience of living in the world and understanding the history of their professions and crafts.

Clearly we need a mix; generational diversity is as important as having an ethnic and gender balance that reflects those an organization serves. Those of us who have been around for a while also understand that learning new skills is part of professional and personal growth. Most of my out of work friends would happily learn new things to stay in the forefront of their professions. In many cases, experience offers a constructive humility that makes the older worker easier to train.

As an older student, studying for a master’s degree with younger classmates, I’ve learned that the way my Boomer colleagues and I are viewed is often at odds with our own self image. This is a good reminder that service and humility go a long way toward achieving success even when it comes to those far less experienced than us. The demeanor and attitude of Capt. Sullenberger amply displayed these characteristics as news of his accomplishments spread. There is a lesson here for all of us, whatever our age.

So my quest for exploring new careers is motivated as much by desire as necessity. The good news is that for this so-called “older worker” new is exciting. I’m not ready to retire. As I continue to operate my media consulting business fresh opportunities and chances to learn add excitement and challenge. Experience is a great teacher, too. In these difficult times, having a few gray hairs might not be such a bad thing for all kinds of organizations.