This time last year I made a series of predictions about social media and public relations.  I suggested that while 2010 was a year of discovery, the past 2011 was going to be about sharing and engaging.  About communities being empowered by the knowledge they will have pooled together.  I highlighted from my perspective the challenges and opportunities that Facebook, Twitter and YouTube will pose for companies and individuals.  The impact that social networking has had on events during the past year has truly been beyond what anybody could have expected.

While 2010 was about Wikileaks, the past year has been about challenging the reputation of companies, organisations and individuals that used the law to hide their indiscretions.  Twitter and other social networks came into their own as members of the legal profession struggled to grasp the structure of communications across international jurisdictions.

In my post ‘2011, A Year Of Change In Public Relations,’ I said that the coming year was going to be about communities that were engaged and empowered.  Wikileaks showed what you could do privately.  Facebook, Twitter and YouTube were the channels through which you could anonymously share content and opinion.  They are the channels that gathered a community together, empowering them to seek the transparency that was far too often absent.  Even the once trusted media estate came under the gaze of the community.

The Arab Spring in North Africa was an occasion that surprised many commentators. Sharing of stories on Twitter about high-profile individuals was going to happen.  Managing reputations has now moved into a real-time business.  In fact, if something wrong has been done it is today best expected that such an act will become public.

Last year I also raised the point about the power of mobile, of cellphones.  Wherever you are you have a cellphone.  You are connected to a world of real time information that reaches you as quickly as you wish to access the news that is available.  News shared by the network that you are connected to.  Reliance on traditional news channels is long gone.  News is shaped by members of the communities that we trust, which is why from a public relations perspective crises are today that when audiences go negative on a brand, cause or individual.

As I stated, news organisations are not dead and they are certainly not dying.  They are just changing and adapting to become what their primary audience wants of them.  An adoption that will continue in the 2012.

But what about the coming year?  Well, I am finishing my thoughts on this and will share these with you pretty soon.

Facebook is moving into the news business, hoping to capitalise on news outlets latest refocus on social networking.  It’s Edition’s project will see the networking giant face-up to Apple and Google, who are both working on project to monitise our appetite for news in real-time.

Fifteen years ago news outlets opted to make the content that had a cover-price free online, a strategy based trying to get a slice of the then large online advertising pie.  Then, after putting all of it’s eggs in one basket, it faced with a severe decline in advertising revenue, forcing many newsrooms to cut their staff.  Then, after much strategising some outlets opted for paywalls, a decision that to this day still causes plenty of debate in the news industry.  Some outlets, like the The Times, Sunday Times, New York Times and the Financial Times delivered various options – fully restrictive or freemium services.  It all appears to have provided some security for the medium-term.

Enter Facebook, who with over 750 million members has decided to move into the news business with it’s Facebook Editions – an app that allows users to consume news within it’s walls.

News outlets had been working with Apple and it’s Newsstand offering which would update subscribers news subscriptions via an exclusive App.  I wrote a post about this in September 2009 about the ‘Changing And Charging TimesFor News.’ Many outlets have signed-up to Apple’s Newsstand.  Others haven’t, not liking the terms set out – including a 30% fee for Apple.  The Financial Times is a case whereby they have taken their content from the App Store and have developed an HTML5 site that can be accessed through iPhone, iPods and iPads.  Developed by Assanka, the HTML5 app is fluid and smooth and as a subscriber I have to say that it set’s the standard.

Facebook knows that over a third of its 750 million users access the site through mobile devices, and those who access the site on a cell-phone or tablet as active than traditional desktop users.  This explains why news outlets like CNN, The Washington Post and Rupert Murdoch’s The Daily are wanting in on Zuckerberg’s next project.

The fact is that the consumption of news has not diminished, it has most probably risen.  Start-up’s like Flipboard show how we the consumer like our news to be gathered from trusted sources that can verify content, such as journalists, as well as from friends and peers that can deliver unverified news, enabling us to be the first for news.

The speed at which news is consumed is what the PR community is going to have to focus on as outlets compete to deliver quality content.

News Corporation Chairman and Chief Executive James Murdoch this afternoon made the shock announcement of the clousure 168 year old News Of The World (#NOTW).

In what is seen as a high risk decision aimed at both ending the scandal surrounding News Of The World’s alleged phone-hacking and placating the political beasts who are calling for a ‘No’ to News International’s BSkyB deal, Murdoch and his Executives decided to sacrifice this title.

It is being reported that over 200 jobs will be culled in the clousure, with the offer being made to staff to reapply for work within News International. This of course has raised the question of if the decision is just a PR masterstroke to push through News Corporation’s desire to secure the BSkyB deal. It equally raises the question of why Rebekah Brooks still in her job, given that she was Editor of the title during the Milly Dowler phone-hacking.

Since it was made public that journalists had hacked into people’s phones, social media channels vocalised their disgust at the News Of The World with many thousands targeting companies, calling on them to remove their advertising from the title.

This is a going to be a text book PR case study of HOW NOT to manage a crisis and solve the reputation of an established news outlet.

Excuse after excuse has cost the jobs of many journalists just so News International can gain full ownership of BSkyB.

Of course, is there a Sunday Sun on the way? Well, On Tuesday 5 July 2011 – two days ago, the Sun On Sunday UK domain was registered (Registered by News International), so, we’ll have to wait and see!

UK national tabloid The News Of The World (#NOTW) is caught in the eye of a very public storm as revelations allege their involvement in the phone hacking of not just the murdered Milly Dowler, but the parents of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman and victims of the July 7th London bombing.

The esteemed Nicholas Tomalin, said that ‘the only qualities needed for real success in Journalism are ratlike cunning, a plausible manner and a little literary ability.‘ He was not wrong.

It is this cunning that’s got The Guardian’s Nick Davies  the story, as it’s served up insight into the activities that were allegedly common place at the News Of The World.  But let’s not single them out exclusively.  News outlets are in competition with one another and it would be odd to think that they were the only ones guilty.  In fact, In the 2006 ‘What Price Privacy Now?’ report (below) the Information Commission highlighted that 305 journalists had been identified during Operation Motorman as customers driving the illegal trade in confidential personal information.  Have a look at the list and you’ll be surprised by some of the titles that were named and shamed.  The various reports confirm two methods that journalists and private investigators use to get information, including, ‘through corruption, or more usually by some form of deception, generally known as ‘blagging’. Blaggers pretend to be someone they are not in order to wheedle out the information they are seeking.’

What Price Privacy Now Notw

Phone-hacking is really just the tip of the iceberg.  Given that most people do not change the default password on their phone it is pretty easy to intercept voice messages.  But, getting information on addresses, car registration requires deception and/or as the law describes, corruption.

The above report highlights the case of how in November 2006 Stephen and Sharon Anderson of St Ives in Cambridgeshire pleaded guilty to obtaining and selling information unlawfully whilst operating as private investigators.  They used ‘blagging’ techniques to obtain and attempt to obtain personal information about individuals from a number of organisations including Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, British Telecommunications plc and various banks.

So, while our eyes are currently on The News Of The World, the real question is, what about organisations that private investigators get their data from?  How safe is your data – your bank details, phone numbers, your bills and tax information?  And how ready are these businesses for the questions that must be asked?  If you work PR in-house or agency-side are you ready for the reputation of your client or employer being questioned?  And questions about how safe customers data is?  And today, when we work online, how safe our our emails and our personal profiles?

News Of The World’s official line that it was all down to a ‘rogue reporter’ just did not wash from a public relations perspective.  While it might have held back the criticism, it was like putting a finger in the dam.

Some newsrooms are aggressive places with boiler-room like cultures. You have to get the story. You don’t ask questions about the how, you just need to make sure that all the pieces fit together and that your legal team sign it off.  All of course with the safety net of ‘Public Interest.’  But what is the definition of public interest? And why is the very quiet Press Complaint Commission so neutral?  The PCC’s statement was just pointless.

Carter-Ruck Partner Magnus Boyd says, “public interest is always the justification used for such intrusion. It appears the lack of an adequate definition of public interest has allowed many spurious claims to the public interest.“  He says, “At the moment only Ofcom and the PCC offer working definitions of what is in the public interest and both are deliberately vaugue so as to retain sufficient flexibility and applicability.”

“Conversely, however, the lack of precision in the definition of ‘public interest’ allows the concept to be cited on ‘a rather tired and formulaic basis’ in many cases as Mr Justice Eady noted.  What is interesting to the public may not neceassarily be in the public interest but we can no longer afford to seek to define it by ommission or by the adage, ‘you’ll know it when you see it’.” We need to define what the public interest is in a way that the general public can understand and relate to and which will have sufficient flexibilty to adapt to changing circumstances without being all things to all men”

Talking about celebrity reporting Boyd goes on to explain, “Ironically, celebrity reporting usually requires the least invasive investigation techniques – there are usually people ready to talk off the record and perpetuate the gossip. What may well emerge from recent events is that hacking and blagging were used far more in the investigation of financial and corporate stories than readers may have realised as well as more general news items.”

Up an until The Guardian revealed that the phone of Milly Dowler had been hacked the story seemed distant from the public.  It was an issue that just affected celebrities, people, as some might claim, that courted the media.  But knowing to what lengths certain media outlets would go to has turned the tide.

A social media campaign by the public has been targeting not just readers of the paper but companies that advertise in the News of the World.  Public revulsion is pushing this gossip paper into a tight corner.  Companies like Ford, Mitsubishi, NPower, Virgin Holidays have cut their advertising from the title.

The Daily Telegraph’s Harry Wallop commented on Twitter, ‘NotW makes c£35m from ads + c£135m from sales. Few weeks of dropped ads won’t hit paper hard. Reader loyalty is what matters.’

The community is using Twitter and Facebook to spread their disgust and it’s having an impact, with subscribers to The Sun and other News International cancelling their subscriptions.

Social media can whip-up a storm and highlight public sentiment in real-time.  Give the community and argument and it will express it’s view.  But let’s remember, they are not the only guilty party and PR’s need to be ready for the questions about data, information and privacy that now need to be asked.

****UPDATE***

The Press Complain’s Commission yesterday released a statement that, well, didn’t say much apart from it being unhappy with the conduct of one of it’s members.

In Press Gazette today, Dominic Ponsford highlights how a Independent Enquiry might (we hope) focus on the role of the PCC.

Labour MP Alun Michael, himself a former journalist, speaking in an emergency debate about phone-hacking in the Commons yesterday, said: “The PCC is well meaning, but frankly it’s a joke, the public deserve better and the journalists deserve better. The PCC clearly has neither the will nor the ability to change things. What we need is an independent body, that is robust, effective, and has the powers to investigate and enforce. That would be a major step forward.

Twitter this week launched ‘Twitter for Newsroom‘, an online guide to help those in publishing and journalism understand how best to find sources, verify stories and publish news online.

For many events Twitter has become the stories break, confirming how, as @nicnewman states in a report that news organisations are ‘abandoning attempts to be the first for breaking news, focusing instead on besting the best at verifying and curating it.’  Twitter has become a must-have tool for journalists, enabling them to reach out directly to people caught in the story and who want to share their experience.

All this said, the #TfN guide is very basic and top-line, not adding much value to what we already know.  The announcement highlights more how Twitter is understanding the use of it’s channel by the community as it tries to set some standards and best practice.  The channel has already made public ‘Producers’ guide to Twitter on TV‘ and ‘On-air [TV/Web] display guidelines.’

You just have to look at the case’s of injunctions in the UK of the uprisings in various Middle East countries to see how Twitter and other social networking channels have made the public into individual broadcasters, voices that can add value to a story.  But with so many voices journalists are having to develop a forensic view to enable them to dig through the noise and spin.  It is these skills that add value to journalism.

The announcement this week is a case of how the community is leading and the company is accepting the standards that we are setting.

With the upcoming integrating into Apple’s iOS5 we will see Twitter as a possible default messaging platform for those using Apple products.

Following on from the CIPR’s acclaimed Digital Impact conference last month the institute will be hosting a series of social media meetings this summer.

Entitled The CIPR’s Social Summer events will take place every Thursday until the end of August and will bring together leading PR and social media professionals to discuss and debate this ‘not so new’ communications channel.  Speakers include Philip Sheldrake, who yesterday presented a session on analytics, Andrew Smith, Stuart Bruce, Stephen Waddington, Steve Earl and myself.

The events will be held at the institute’s London head-office with sessions ranging from social media analytics and the rise of mobile networking to insight and tips on how to get ahead in social.  I will be hosting an after-work session on how social media is used in the newsroom and broadcast television.

The fact of the matter is that while social media has affected how we do public relations – forcing many of us into real-time reaction and into a culture of conversation and dialogue, newsrooms and television programmers have had to adapt to ensure that their own industries survive the change in the balance of power between providers and consumers of news and content.

But how does the communications industry adapt?  What does we need to learn from sectors that for so long we’ve work with?  How do we work together to make sure that the people that we wish to speak with engage with us?  These and so many more questions will be debated during my session on 15^th July.

To find out more about this and other CIPR social summer sessions visit the wiki and sign-up soon.  Tickets for each session are only £10 on the door, to cover the cost of beer and a seat!

Below is my presentation that I gave at the Digital Impact conference and which I’ll be expanding from in July.

So this summer, remember, PR is getting social!

KPMG reports that that consumers are “spending less on traditional and digital media than six months ago, but consuming more.”

The six-monthly KPMG Media and Entertainment Barometer released yesterday shows that average spend per UK consumer on traditional media fell from “from £9.19 in September 2009 to £7.46 in March 2010 and spend on digital media also fell (from £1.99 to £0.98).”

However, media consumption increased.  The average monthly consumption of traditional media rose marginally from 11 hrs 40 minutes in September 09, to 12 hours 13 minutes.  Hours spent consuming digital media increased 17 per cent, from 6 hours 14 minutes to 7 hours 28 minutes, confirming the importance of online and digital channels in communications campaigns.

Of concern to media executives though is that 21 per cent of newspaper readers paid nothing for news over the past month, compared with 15 percent six months ago.  In London this almost doubled – 23 percent to 41 percent – highlighting the impact of the Evening Standard move to a ‘free’ model.  And today we hear on BBC Development Manager Stephen Martin’s Twitter feed that “free copies of The Independent out on the streets of London via the Standard distributors“.  This was followed by by other people commenting that said newspaper was also being distributed for free in Brighton.

With the increasing majority of respondents saying that they’d paid nothing for accessing online news portals – up from 84 percent in September 2009 to 88 percent in March 2010, the belief that news should be free appears to be absolute and will be challenge for executives pushing the ‘paywall’ model.  Of course The Times is rolling out its paywall for The Times and Sunday Times in June and we wait to see if this is a success.

Looking at the figures though we should note that those aged 16-24 are more likely to pay for online content than their older counterparts, who are themselves spending more time on social networking/blogging sites – increasing from 37 to 45 per cent.

Last week Google decided to launch a salvo against the news industry by attacking plans by some outlets to introduce paywalls.

Armed with an array of statistics Google’s Chief Economist Hal Varian highlighted how “newspapers have never made much money from news” and that they could “save a lot of money if the primary access to news was via the internet.”  In effect, what Varian was saying is that print is dead, bin the paper and move all your content online.  Simple.  But is he right and would such a strategy save the news and publishing industries?

Of course such an attack appeared designed to position Google as the saviour of these industries.  Using statistics designed to confuse, Varian wanted people to see how referrals from Google news to publishers websites were helping outlets maximise their advertising revenue.

Personally I would question how Google is going about promoting its argument.  After all, no industry likes to be kicked when they are down.

The fact of the matter is that the news and publishing industry is currently learning and experimenting how to make money from their presence online.  Launching such an attack now is only designed to confuse an industry into making a premature decision.

At the recent London Financial Times Digital Media and Broadcast conference (#ftmedia10), Penguin’s CEO John Makinson presented a beautifully crafted showreel that highlighted everything that I personally believe in.  The video gave industry opinion-formers that were present the argument from the perspective of the reader and consumer.  The reel was designed for the publishing industry but is very much relevant to not just the news industry, but public relations.  Reaching our audience is important, and while they might not be seen spending time on news sites they might still be talking about news on Facebook, Twitter and other social networking platforms.

The PR message on news sites ads authority to a client, a message on social networking sites adds presence.  At the conference WPP CEO Sir Martin Sorrell outlined his view that social media is “less commercial phenomena, they are more personal phenomena.”  Social media is not an area for advertising, but for public relations.

For public relations social media is a great new tool that through which clients can engage with its audience.  And technology toys such as the iPad allow the news and publishing industry to reach out to audiences at home or work.  Such items allow us to present more than words.  It will allow us to promote in real-time.  We’ve known about this channel and the opportunities it presents for some time.  Today, clients are slowly changing how the communicate.  They want to engage directly with consumers, either directly or through authoritative news outlets.  What we have to make sure we do is to listen and talk, rather than just talk.

Senior media and communications executives met in London this week for the 2010 FT Digital Media and Broadcast conference (#ftmedia10).  At the heart of the debate were the questions of how the sectors were emerging from the global recession and the impact of online and social media on the creative industry and its revenues.

WPP Group Chief Executive Sir Martin Sorrell launched the opening salvo by questioning companies that, from an advertising perspective, were being over-optimistic about social media.  Sir Martin described social media as a phenomenon that was “personal” and therefore “not suited to being invaded by adverts.”  He was right.  This phenomenon is personal and it works because it’s based on conversational marketing that’s more suited to public relations than advertising.

Answering a question that I put to him about if he agreed with Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s comment that privacy was no longer a ‘social norm,’ Sir Martin said that “privacy was still the norm” and that this was one point with which he disagreed with Mark on.  “People are still concerned by it and the invasion of it,” Sir Martin added.  We should remember that privacy is individuality.

This opening day coincided with one of the speakers’ key policy announcements.  Mark Thompson, the BBC’s Director General, had been forced to bring forward by a week the results of the much-anticipated strategic review into the corporation.  Thompson outlined to the conference the plans that he was putting forward for consultation.

I was thankful that while we were in a panel discussion on ‘The Future Of News,’ before Thompson arrived, friends at the BBC tweeted me to let me know that Mark was first on Five Live and then on the BBC News Channel.  I also received a link to the following blog by Pete Ashton, which in my view nailed it with regards to what Thompson is aiming for.

While Strategic Review is aiming to slim down the BBC, detractors will keep giving it flak to avoid commentators questioning why their own companies are not performing as well as they should be.  A contact at the BBC tweeted me a private message that stated the obvious, “Part of the fun is that the BBC will always get flak for whatever it does from someone.“ Pete Ashton’s blog post said it well by highlighting how the “BBC spent a decade or more figuring it out and, surprise, they’ve kinda successful at this digital / internet game.”  And that is why I applaud the BBC.

So the Auntie is going on a self-imposed diet and will be focusing on: 1) best journalism in the world, 2) Inspiring content that brings knowledge, music and culture to life, 3) Ambitious UK drama and comedy, 4) Outstanding children’s content, and 5) Events that bring communities and the nation together.  These sound like the corporation’s key strengths, but will the cutbacks satisfy its critics?  Will it hell.  But here is the problem, apart from the reaction to the BBC’s own 6 Music DAB station – which is wrong (#saveBBC6music), a slimmed down Auntie will emerge stronger, tougher and more focused on delivering great content.

In fact, in his speech, Thompson stated without any ambiguity, “one day, the web may be the principle platform for all the BBC’s services.”  Ten years ago the BBC went online.  Today, commercial news outlets are still trying to see how to make online work for an audience that is reluctant to pay.

Before Mark Thompson’s arrival New York Times Chairman and Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr, Financial Times CEO John Ridding and Google’s MD Matt Brittin had been discussing the future of news.  All the talk in the lead up to the conference had been about paywalls, would they or wouldn’t they work?

Ridding confirmed that readers were willing to pay for content by stating that the FT had “40 per cent year on year growth” with regards to subscriptions, while Brittin said that “British content [journalism] had a reputation for quality.”  But of course Brittin represented the outcast of the industry after Rupert Murdoch threatened to pull News International content out of Google’s News and it’s search.  Of course Brittin was well armed and highlighted that the search mammoth “send over 4 billion hits a month to publishers websites,” a fact that news publishers cannot ignore.

The Apple iPad was also talked about with comments from the panel about it’s potential for generating revenue.  The FT’s Ridding noted a word of caution by highlighting the risks of subscription fatigue amongst readers.

At this point you start to see what I’d noted for some time, how the media landscape was changing and how the various communications sectors were battling for survival.  Convergence is the word that sprang to mind.

For production companies it is about maximising revenues that can be reinvested elsewhere.  Yes, broadcasters are shop window from which historically they have made money, but with this stream’s drying up forcing many producers to become creative and look to use social media and other networking tools to make money.

Producers such as Endemol know that in today’s multi-platform world the audience is no longer just on television, and they are not just a viewer.  Thanks to user-generated-content and the various online tools people today are producers, promoters and marketers.  A point that is also relevant to the audiences that PRs and journalists are working to engage and influence.

The conference set out a world that is very different to that of a few back.  Consumers are more demanding and want content on the go.  They also want to be able to communicate and share, both opinion and content.  Social media is having a profound effect on how companies interact with consumers, how newspapers and media outlets get stories and how the customer is served.

Today, we live in a world where the audience wants ‘quality’ content that is either “free or cheap” and, as VivaKi’s Rishad Tobaccowala said, “the half life of data is minutes” as everything becomes “real-time”.

So there, go figure how to crack this one and bring the audience onside.  What I do know is that as a PR we need to learn quickly how to navigate this changing media landscape.

We all know how the downturn in advertising spend has affected the press and publishing industries.  Newsrooms appear to have been decimated as publishers across all sectors laid journalists out to pasture.  In far too much haste commentators wasted no time in penning the obligatory obituary for their own industry.  But how wrong they appeared to have been.

If there was one thing that came from last week’s news:rewired conference at London’s City University it was that journalism is rediscovering itself and using technology and it’s audience to do an even better job.  The fact is that while the decline in advertising has decimated newspapers and magazine, publishers have been fighting back, restructuring and getting their journalists to use social media and networking platforms not just for promoting content but for reaching out, developing contacts and finding great stories.

Professor George Brock opened the day with a series of seminal questions, is there such a thing as news, is authority in the crowd or the expert, does news stay in bundles and how do we [journalists] tell what is true?

Brock challenged the news model and gave examples of how outlets in the US are re-establishing themselves.  In his keynote speech he encouraged those present to not look at technology as the saviour of journalism, but to look backward and remember traditional journalism.

Using the 2009 Iranian election protests as an example Brock cited that while Twitter and video were important during the uprising, “it’s a less well known that one of the most effective ways of opposition ideas was slogans stamped on banknotes.”  He added that opposition messages were, “now stamped on so many banknotes that the governor or the Iranian Central Bank – not very sympathetic to the authorities – is in an argument with the authorities who want them removed from circulation.  Of course, in an economy you can’t just withdraw large numbers of banknotes [as] you will trigger an economic crisis.  So the message remains in circulation!”

Technology and social media platforms are tools that support communications.  They support journalism and public relations. BBC College of Journalism Editor Kevin Marsh highlighted how the BBC Newsroom had adopted web-centric journalism skills that allow engagement with its audience.  Something that I’ve written about before.

Kevin Marsh at news:rewired 2010 from BBC College of Journalism on Vimeo.

Marsh confirmed that new skills and platforms are just that, new.  They are there to back up traditional newsgathering skills such as organising an outside broadcast, gathering information from a court case or persuading people to talk and go on the record.

Seminars that took place confirmed that journalists have to learn and adapt to how people are moving online.  Journalists needed to pick up new skills on how multimedia newsrooms work, the power of social media for journalists, crowd-sourcing and data-mashing.

Content and stories are online and it’s a journalist’s job is to find and report them depending on their beat.  To use content to back up what contacts can provide.

But why is this so important to public relations professionals?  Why should this shift matter to those who build and shape brands and reputations?

In my opinion it matters a lot.  It matters because journalists are using citizens as an extension of their profession.  And citizens that are happy to contribute.  They are happy to be the eyes and ears on the ground.

During the crowd sourcing session tempers nearly got the better of some who objected to the term ‘citizen-journalists.’  Some attendees coined the term ‘eye-witness-journalists’ as professionals found it objectionable that people with no training described themselves as ‘journalists’.  While it was a very well argued point, the fact is that while many people can contribute to a story it is a trained journalist that can filter out the coal from the diamonds.

All this matters to PRs because people that unhappy customers can be found very easily.  Technology has herded people into online pens and it is the job of a good journalist to find them and work them into a story.

The same people want to receive their content through their social media platforms, online and on their mobiles.  The same devices that can now capture any bit of breaking news.

Of course journalists are learning on the go as the news and publishing industry moved online.  A channel where readers and viewers are less faithful.  Loyalty will depend on the speed at which content is updated.

Award-winning videojournalist and Southbank artist-in-residence David Dunkley Gyimah shows us what can be done and possibly what journalists should be.  Watching David confirmed that journalists might have to be multi-disciplined.

A brief visual history of videojournalism from david dunkley gyimah on Vimeo.

Journalism is evolving and the new technology that for so long had been blamed for its potential demise might in fact be its saviour.  And that is important for everybody, not just journalists, and not just PRs.