NSA Poses Major Threat to the Future of Journalism

The National Security Agency recently has recently posed a threat to journalists worldwide by essentially ruining relationships between reporters and sources. The important watchdog responsibility of the media is thus being diminished.

There are two sides to this argument, both of which I can understand, but both of which pose a giant threat to either the freedom of speech or to regional (or even national) security. 

First, I can see how NSA would be concerned about sources giving false or extremely confidential information and then not being able to identify them. If sources are published anonymously and they make ridiculous or false claims that may be believed by the general public, there is definitely reason for concern - especially when it's a matter of security.

Say for example that a large newspaper publishes a story about what is located in Area 51 or where to find confidential government documents. If the reporter that is responsible for the story refuses to identify those sources, no one can be punished or investigated for revealing confidential information. Public knowledge of these issues could lead to upheaval and/or threats to national/regional security.

On the other hand, there is no way to consider journalism true journalism if it is tainted by restrictions and demands from the government. This would take us back to the times of prior restraint, when the government would censor all or part of newspapers and publications for approval. We, as a country, and as journalists, have worked very hard to remove this barrier and the last thing we'd want to do is relapse into that time - where true journalism didn't really exist.

Journalism, at least to me, is about digging, investigating and getting the story accurate - no matter how controversial or ridiculous it may seem. If it's the truth - journalists want to deliver that news. Sometimes, this means that sources want to be anonymous for fear of being scrutinized and attacked.

If journalists are forced to reveal the identities of their anonymous sources, will we move back to the times of prior restraint and limited journalism?

Check out the article and decide for yourself:

NSA POSES DIRECT THREAT TO JOURNALISM

Social Media: A Double-Edged Sword

I recently read an article (Dangers of Twitter) that discussed that while Twitter has become an important tool for organizations to use to communicate with consumers, it has also become a threat to some businesses, professionals and even college students.

This article cited a few different instances where people have tweeted inappropriate things and lost jobs and more because of it. For example, the article cites the instance of Justine Sacco, a Public Relations professional who tweeted an offensive tweet that read, "“Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!”

This alone is extremely offensive and business professionals like herself should know not to put things like out this for the public eye to see. This is more proof that Twitter is a double-edged sword. It can be positive for sending out (appropriate) messages to target audiences in a quick and efficient way with a high reach, but it can also be dangerous because a slip like the one above can lead to the loss of a career or even a lawsuit. 

Many of the college age students that were interviewed for the article said that they would prefer that their social media accounts stay social so they could avoid the fear of being judged by potential employers. This is a fair dream, but it's just that - a dream. These days, monitoring yourself on any social media platform is 100% necessary, because a simple Google search can reveal some very unflattering things. It's important to maintain a professional presence no matter whether it is a blog, Twitter account, Facebook, etc.

The bottom line is, you can either use social media like Twitter to build your personal brand, or to tear it down - so it is more important than ever to make smart choices.

How A Super Bowl Commercial Becomes News.

If you're like myself, or millions of others across the country, you probably sat down Sunday night to watch the Super Bowl. Maybe you are a die-hard Denver Broncos fan; maybe you love the Seattle Seahawks, but maybe you're like me - maybe you love the commercials.

Each year, without fail, there is one commercial that creates a buzz. It creates excitement. It creates brand awareness. It stimulates conversation via social media. Each year there's one commercial that surpasses the value of a 60 second spot on the Super Bowl and becomes the topic of conversation amongst many. This year, it was most certainly the Budweiser "Puppy Love" commercial. Now, if you haven't seen the commercial, it's a heartwarming 60-second spot that shows a dog and horse that are in "puppy love." The dog is constantly wandering into a horse stable and away from its home at an adoption center to visit the horse. At the end of the spot, a man comes and adopts the puppy, and as he's pulling away in his sports car, he's stopped by a pack of horses and the commercial ends with the puppy leading the pack of horses back to his home.

A real heart-warmer. I'm not going to lie - I teared up a little. It's emotional and it tugs on your heartstrings. You can identify with it somehow. Maybe you had a puppy you loved, maybe you've been in puppy love, or maybe you just like to see good things happen to good people (or animals). Either way - it gets you. No one stops to think: This has nothing to do with beer. That's what Budweiser is about: beer. Yet, there was no mention of the product throughout the commercial. Only a simple "Best Buds" hashtag at the end with the product name, which no one is paying attention to because they're so caught up in the romance and hopefulness of the commercial. So what is this commercial's purpose if they show their brand for only a split second out of the entire spot?

BUZZ.

That's what Budweiser wants. This connects their brand to something more emotional, something on a deeper level. Something that makes you feel good. So, next time you're in the grocery store trying to decide which beer to buy, maybe you'll think of the cute puppy love commercial and decide to go with Bud instead of your typical Miller Light purchase.

It's all about newsworthiness. I was very impressed with the commercial and I really enjoyed it. I think the idea of tagging the commercial with "Best Buds" is a great way for Bud to transfer the spot onto social media like Twitter and Facebook. Suddenly, this is no longer a commercial, it's a news story. You can bet this commercial will be at the beginning of each of the reels highlighting the best Super Bowl commercials for 2014. There's no way it wouldn't. Suddenly, Budweiser's millions of dollars they spent on a commercial has become so much more valuable because they are getting essentially "free" publicity from news programs, newspapers, social media and look- this is one of the many blog posts that will be written about it!

I even got an email this morning (the morning after the Super Bowl) from the American Advertising Federation, whose headline read, "Budweiser's 'Puppy Love' tops USA Today's Super Bowl ad Rankings."

People are talking.

Overall, I'd say this tactic is one of the most brilliant I've seen in awhile. I've seen other brands try to use this tactic, but I'd have to say...Budweiser has surpassed them all.

To check out their Twitter account, which now has over 47,000 followers (even though you have to verify that you are 21 or older to access it), click the link below.

Budweiser

The cover photo as of Monday, Feb. 3, 2014 has now changed to a snap shot of the very end of the "Puppy Love" commercial and their profile picture is a one of the dog from the commercial with the hashtag "Best Buds."

Below is a link to the Business section of Time magazine that also published a story deeming this commercial as one of the 19 best Super Bowl ads of all time. (Also, adding that it will "Melt Your Heart.")

Time Business