The next big break for media clippings will be when WSJ.com does away with it’s paid content.

With anything we write one of the goals is to get people’s attention, headlines are intended to do this in a newspaper. By avoiding what we call editorializing, that’s sharing one’s opinion beyond being objective and credible, writers and editors find catchy ways to get readers’ attention to read stories, even if it’s only the first few sentences of the story, or the lead. Scan the newspaper and see what, by headline alone, catches your attention. By the same token, when writing headlines for your blog posts try to make them catch, you have to think that with the millions of pieces of information available on the Web, if you get your content in front of a potential reader the title or headline is where conversion takes place. Granted, this takes some practice but will ultimately be one major way to get a good strong following from more distant readers (people who may not know you and simply come across or stumble onto your blog).

I was looking at Engadget the other day and this headline just jumped off the page at me,

What a headline, he got the gist of the story across, threw his twist on the story to get my attention and it worked. Compare this with “My thoughts for today” and unless I know you I probably won’t click on your blog to read about your thoughts.

My Two Cents: Although I think that user-generated content is what makes the Web great, I also think we can do a better job overall. Not only will writing more thought-provoking, catchier headlines cast a better light on us the writers, but it could also potentially drive traffic to our site.

When choosing a spokesperson it is important to remember you want someone who will represent you well. For larger companies, it isn’t a bad idea to have a media policy for employees, after all, the reporter that wants the scoop doesn’t care if it’s coming from the top or the mail room, it is probably more credible coming from the mail room, for that matter.

So with this little post, I don’t intend to make any judgments about Michael Vick, his career or personal life, suffice it to say, the local attorney is looking into charges for alleged dog fighting on his property. My colleague, the Crazy Canuck, sent me this clip of Vick’s fellow footballers, and probably friends, backing and defending Vick to the media. I don’t think he asked them to say anything, much less paid them to say anything. The bottom line is that these guys aren’t doing the NFL, their teams or Michael Vick much good by “candidly” sharing their opinions with the media.

My Two Cents: Obviously this is a bit over the top, however, it well proves the fact that you should carefully choose your spokesperson. This certainly applies when the media tries to contact your friends, or employees, be careful, the media may not verify that these people are authorized to speak in your behalf.

ESPN

Are you kidding me, Wojciechowski makes it seem like Kirk Radomski is doing something wrong by being willing to testify about the HGH/Steroids issues and what he knows about them. Although an opinion piece, this was a disappointing issue and, in my opinion, falls well below the standard of typical ESPN reporting.

Granted, my opinion is that players using HGH or any performance enhancing substance are dirty–I don’t care if “everyone is doing it,” that argument didn’t work for my parents and I’m sure it didn’t work for yours or the athlete’s! But Wojciechowski hit below the belt calling Radomski a “career jockstrap picker-upper,”A guy who retrieved sweaty sani socks off the clubhouse floor.”

This is the kind of attitude that keeps whistleblowers from coming forward, let’s ridicule them, make them look like they’ve done something wrong. I don’t care if the MLB corporate culture says what happens here stays here. If it’s unfair or illegal, as far as I see it you are an accomplice if you keep your mouth shut!

My Two Cents: This is poor reporting for any journalist. It’s not like he’s attacking Radomski’s credibility alone, Wojciechowski is making personal attacks on Radomski and that’s unprofessional!

That said, I think that we need to forgive. The reason I came to this conclusion is that in my mind it proves the opposite of what his comments are supposedly saying. By forgiving rather than condemning, I think we can show that we are in very deed Christians. We read time and time again in the scriptures, “by their fruits ye shall know them,” well “fruits” are evidences or results, so wouldn’t it make sense that, as a faith we, the Mormons, would forgive and show Mr. Sharpton and the rest of the world that we are, by every sense of the word Christians.

My Two Cents: It is very hard for us to forgive, we yearn for justice or vengeance. However, as individuals, I believe we are destined and should be striving to rise above mere humans, forgiveness without repentance is a sign, or “fruit” that we are elevating ourselves above mere humanity. In other words, forgive him and move on, if his intentions are less than kind, the “fruits” will be seen, otherwise it is not our place to stand in judgment.

We need media who don’t just try or hope to move the masses through rhetoric and persuasion, but rather, we need media who are driven to move and will–within bounds–do all that is necessary to shift opinions or stand up to bureaucracy in pursuit of what is truly right! Those are my two cents, good night, and good luck.

Let me say that as a PR person, Wikipedia is an important player in PR 2.0 and social media tactics, not only does it get your message, client or product in front of a lot of people in a very unbias location, but it is also a great SEO tool in the Web 2.0 realm.

Here are a couple of articles discussing the growing pains Wikipedia went through:

BW’s Heather Green’s post and CNET’s article

My Two Cents: I don’t think this is a bad thing. Granted it isn’t pleasant for Wikipedia or the parties that have been wronged, but we–players in the media industry–need to figure out how to use these developing media and I am hesitant to regulate the heck out of them, so I think this is an interesting point of discussion as long as some resolutions are made in the end and can be applied to the media industry.

What are your thoughts?

Read the survey results here

My Two Cents: It’s always nice to know how to get more media coverage; what’s better is when the person telling you that is the journalist!

Here is a site that is making some serious claims against some top-tier national and international news services.

Click here to see the brief video clip.

What do you think? Are we being told what to think or what to think about?