There is no such thing as unbiased news coverage

The recent debacle that has plagued the reputation of the erstwhile seemingly pious and virtuous Al Jazeera TV network comes to no surprise.

Having for many years managed to successfully portray an image of a neutral and impartial broadcaster of news and analyses on Middle Eastern affairs, albeit from an Arabian standpoint, the Doha-based network has recently been openly attacked by its own staff for deliberately skewing news coverage of the latest Egypt street sentiment with a blatant twist in favour of the Islamic Brotherhood.  

It emerged that  Al Jazeera  beamed archive images of a vastly empty Tahris Square to dress up a live news report suggesting that the turnout of people supporting the ousting of President Mosri was rather poor and was against what the majority of Egyptians wanted.
And why would it? Simply because of the vested interests its owner – the Qatari government – has in maintaining the brotherhood’s grip into power for reasons that are totally indifferent to me.

Compare this, with the way the Western media preferred to report on the same story; In what was a blatant coup de’ eta against a democratically elected government, European and US media adopted a rather subdued and low key news and analyses agendas in an obvious attempt to depolarize the situation and defuse the dynamic of the demonstrating supporters of the Brotherhood by appealing for calm and a return to order. None made any reference to a coup de’ eta, neither did they question the sanity or long-term consequences such a violent removal of a democratically elected leader from the office is likely to have in years to come.

And why is that? Because the media, anywhere in the world, follow their owners’ agenda or that of their owners’ bosses agenda, for there is no such thing as a mainstream independent media outlet at an age when, he who controls information, and its flow, controls the world itself.

This is true in both the industrialised world and in the so called BRICS, emerging or third world economies, albeit on a different scale and for varying reasons.

Contemporary research demonstrates increasing levels of consolidation, with many media industries already highly concentrated and dominated by a very small number of firms

Globally, large media conglomerates include Viacom, CBS Corporation, Time Warner, News Corp, Bertelsmann AG, Sony, Comcast, Vivendi, Televisa, The Walt Disney Company, Hearst Corporation, Organizações Globo and Lagardère Group.

In nations described as authoritarian by most international think-tanks and NGOs like Human Rights Watch (China, Cuba, Russia), media ownership is generally something very close to the complete state control over information in direct or indirect ways (see Gazprom Media).

So who controls information, in its totality? Who is masterminding and authorizes the information consumed by billions? Who has such unfathomable power to be able to dictate communication policy on a global scale?

Is it the US resident and the CIA? To a certain, microscopic scale, this is true. Is it the Greek government? Yes, from a small nation’s microcosmic viewpoint Prime Minister Samaras controls the way Greek media report on the longest ever recession that has affected a European nation since the end of World War 2. Is it the BBC? Yes, to a degree which protects Her Majesty’s interests at home and in the Commonwealth, it does. We all know that.

But, what if, these disparate media and those who exercise control over them have to report to someone or some others, whose job is not to micromanage?

Those few, who perhaps, collectively possess enough influence to rule over those who rule us. A group of elite, super wealthy individuals – some recent estimates during the occupy Wall Street movement put them at 1 per cent -  who design long-term policies on all major issues impacting on our lives, from energy supply, to food security and from health services and pharmaceuticals to job creation and religious strife.

As an ex-journalist and a PR man, I have always loved working for and with the media; but as a maturing father growing up in an era marred by conspiracy theories, social injustice and increasing gap between those who have and the ‘have nots’, I maintain my right to be skeptical about the power of the Fourth Estate.

Because, if this power, is indeed being misused and misdirected from protecting the weak and the innocent into becoming a propaganda machine for the handful, then it better had seized to exist.

 

 

A new brave word

Words mean things. Each word evokes a certain reaction or emotion because it is the most descriptive and direct form of human expression. Be it verbal or written, Greek or Chinese, words are highly effective communication tools. Without words, the human race and our civilization would not have evolved through the centuries. There are more words today than ever before in history and there will be more words tomorrow than there are today. How am I so assertive? Because I have coined a new word which I’d like to share with you today. It is a word which I created because I feel there is a need for it as no other existing word can convey the same meaning in such an all-inclusive, all-encompassing way.

PRANDING

It is coined out of four different words which jointly comprise three marketing communications disciplines:

•       Public Relations (PR)

•       Branding (PRANDING) – in Arabic P is pronounced as B

•       Advertising (the letters ‘ad’)

Pranding does exactly what the three disciplines do, only better, by reversing the traditional sequence of campaign origination; by having the end in mind it works backwards to achieve the specifically planned output.

Because of its complex nature and multi-meaningful disposition I also felt compelled to create a logo to help the word convey its core substance in a visual way.

Before Pranding

Company X briefs advertising agency Y for the launch of a new product. Y develops campaign, presents to X for sign off. Y’s objective is to create a campaign that sells the product regardless of any likely implications to the product’s brand equity or reputation.

Once campaign is signed off, Y will brief branding agency Z and PR agency Omega to support the campaign. Z and Omega discover many, some or few issues with the campaign likely to cause brand image or reputational risks.

That’s because branding (influential at the POS) and PR (influential in shaping consumer’s emotional response to a product), did not participate or input during the campaign’s development process.

Let’s take a look at how X is structured internally today and how its various departments are interfacing with Y, Z and Omega.

 

 

 

Even today, before Pranding becomes an established concept, the PR agency which works closely with the Corporate Communications department is already much more attuned to a more holistic picture of what is going on within X as it enjoys a 360 view of the entire operation.

It is actively involved in content creation for the financial reviews and quarterly results media material, it is privy to confidential and public sales targets and marketing strategy, it has also probably helped formulate content about X’s values, mission and corporate principles, is working on X’s CSR strategy, has helped put out a fire or two on operational level (crisis management) and has contributed in and attended numerous occasions where the CEO of X shared in public or during on-on-one media interviews his views or speech on certain industry issues with an impact on the company. And due to its contribution to internal communications, Omega understands HR and staff issues better than any other external supplier. Who would argue with that?

On the other hand, the branding agency is very hands on X’s various branding requirements, from letterheads to the newest web site design and from packaging of products to PoS representation. But have they ever heard the CEO talk? Do they know how the media perceived the latest corporate announcement? Do they even care to know? More or less the same could also be said for the advertising service team. Wrong? 

Post-Pranding

Omega receives client’s initial brief and plots the campaign’s holistic narrative having the end in mind. The end in mind is how the product is likely to be perceived by the consumer through its portrayal in earned and social media. If perceptions created at that level are negative, consumer mindsets will be resistant to any form of paid-for advertisement. Advertisers are not equipped or inclined to weigh in their campaigns the intangible cost of reputational backlash or lack of branding values and overall identity alignment between the master brand and the product in question.

In the age of Pranding, PR takes the lead by plotting the desirable happy ending to the story, then unravels Ariadne’s thread towards the drawing board for the planning stages of the campaign.

If an attempt at reinventing the marketing communications wheel doesn’t warrant the creation of a new word, then I don’t know what is.

Be Brave. Prand!