"Deconstructing" Star Trek Discovery

There’s been a lot of talk about Star Trek Discovery, but I haven’t seen anybody yet really analyze the story.  Ergo, here is my “deconstruction” of the first two episodes.

First let me say that in 1990s, when The Next Generation was on the air, it was common for fans to go onto the message board and work through many fine details and nuances of the episodes.  As I said, I do not see that level of analysis as often today, which is why I am providing this example.

Many of my comments could come across as negative, or as complaints, but that it not what they are. They are observations concerning the many decisions made by the writers and producers. They are what they are, because Discovery is a completed work of art, which is unfolding week-by-week.  So I am looking at what the writers and producers did, how they did it, and why they did it.

There ARE spoilers below, for episodes 1 and 2.

About the Plot

T’Kuvma is a cult leader, having gathered together outcasts and those marginalized by Klingon society. He found his father’s crashed ship, repaired it, and has fixated on the Federation as the enemy of the Klingon people.

“They are coming. They will coil around us.  And take all that we are,” he says.

So, he lures the USS Shenzhou, NCC 1227, to the fringe of Federation space and provokes a conflict.  It is Stardate 1207.3, or May 11, 2256 on Earth.

Specifically, T’Kuvma ignites a huge beacon, both in visible light and subspace signals, that attracts representatives of the 24 “houses” of Klingon society.  He cites legendary Klingon leader Kahless, and essentially says, “Make Klingon great again.”  

Battle results between Klingon and Starfleet ships.  T’Kuvma is killed, and it is asserted in the episodes that killing him makes him a martyr that the Klingon people will rally around, setting the stage for the war storyline in the remainder of the series.

The main character of Discovery is Michael Burnham. This black female first officer of the Shenzhou was raised by Spock’s father after her parents were killed in a Klingon raid.  This is a little confusing because the episodes also establish that virtually nobody has heard from the Klingons in a century.  Maybe it will be clarified in future episodes.

Michael displays some Vulcan traits if employing logic and analysis, but emotions also influence her.  She is the one who actually kills T’Kuvma after he kills her captain, Philippa Georgiou.  Therefore, it is Michael who triggers the entire war, because she allows her emotions to overrule her logic, exacting revenge for her captain’s death.  Saving her captain and crew is more important to her than Starfleet’s principals, which appears to be a remarkably emotional reaction, for one trained by Vulcans.  

Apparently, they have never heard of setting phasers on stun.

Michael gets in big trouble, is court martialed, and sentenced to life in prison.


The Klingons

One of the biggest continuity issues is that Klingons in this era did not have head bumps. 

In Star Trek Enterprise, the Klingon people were infected with a deadly virus, and the cure removed their head bumps.  They only got them back after The Original Series.  This was done in Enterprise to rationalize why Klingons in The Original Series had no head bumps, but before and after, they did.

The Klingons in Discovery would not be as threatening and exotic, if they conformed to established continuity.  This is a question of design esthetics over rigid continuity, but it is one of the things long-term fans will grumble about.  

The assertions about “coming in peace” or firing on first contact were not persuasive to me.  If you fire on a Klingon, the Klingon will fire back.  I do not see that as leading to respect from the Klingons. Klingons respect honorable behavior, like the Enterprise-C defending innocent Klingon civilians from the Romulan raid.  Firing first and asking questions later would not fit Klingon ideas of honor, I believe.

A threat display MIGHT have impressed the Klingons. However, in a threat display, you would fire your weapons in different directions, not at the people you want to impress.  What Michael was advocating, firing first, would just make them mad and ready to defend their own honor against an unreasonable attack.  

Honor IS important to the current generation of Klingons. At one point, T’Kuvma talks about honor, but the other Klingons say he has not earned it. It is interesting that we see flashback scenes that show he had been bullied as a child, which appears to have been part of his stimulus to restore honor, as he saw it, to the entire Klingon people. 

The Klingon cloaking device is also troubling. It is a one-off technology developed by T’Kuvma, so I HOPE we will NOT see Klingon cloaking technology later in the in this series.  It is well established that the Klingons eventually obtain cloaking technology from the Romulans, a dozen years in the future after Discovery.


The Shenzhou

The Shenzhou, of course, is named after the current real-life Chinese manned spacecraft.  

The bridge of the Shenzhou is huge – much larger than a Galaxy Class bridge decades later.  I don’t mind the modern set design not being anything like the Pike/Kirk Enterprise, but to me the various workstations seem spread out too for effective teamwork and collaboration.

By the way, the bridge is on the bottom of the saucer, with real windows, or at least transparent view screens.  

The assertion that the Shenzhou has no shuttle maneuverable enough to navigate the accretion ring is a plot device. Going fast and dodging stuff is hard, but provides dramatic footage.  Going slow makes it not so hard to dodge stuff, but is more boring, even though a shuttle would give more protection from radiation, because it has shields.  

In addition, why didn’t Philippa move Shenzhou closer when they knew Michael was in critical condition?  Yes, there was some debris, but they have shields, and in one wide-angle scene, they were clearly well away from the debris, where they were parked.  It is a standard law of radio that if you cut the distance in half, you quadruple the signal strength between two locations.  They didn’t do this, again, to heighten the suspense.

It will be interesting to radio folks, like me, that a Shenzhou graphic shown while Michael is missing near the Klingon Ship says the transmitters are using 100 watts with an antenna length of 8 meters, but radiated power is a whopping 12,599 watts. In the radio business, we call that a lot of “gain.” 

Nevertheless, why are they using faster-than-light Subspace Radio (subspace frequency 1142) to talk to a ship that is within viewing range, at the most a light second or so away?  Plain old VHF or HF radio would have solved many of their problems. 


The Other Ships

Several Federation starship names had cool associations.  The T'Plana-Hath is named after a Vulcan philosopher mentioned in Spock’s testing at the beginning of The Voyage Home.  The Yeager is named for legendary test pilot Chuck Yeager.  The Ride is presumably for the astronaut Sally Ride.  Many people seem to think that the Edison was named for the inventor, but I think it was for the long-lost Balthazar Edison, a character in the third JJ Trek movie.  The Europa, NCC 1648, is a reference to either Europe, or the moon that may harbor life (and by Michael’s time, they will know whether Europa has life).

By the way, all the ships zapping at once does not make sense.  Surely they came from different distances.  Why would some fly extra fast and some unusually slow so they all arrived POP at the same time. It is a dramatic visual, evoking the new Battlestar Galactica fleet arrivals or departures, but not very likely in the Star Trek universe, where even decades in the future the Enterprise is often the “only ship in the quadrant.”


The Uniforms

I also don’t mind that the uniforms don’t look like Pike/Kirk Enterprise uniforms, again because of modern design expectations.  The uniform side panels appear to reflect position - gold for command, silver for science, and I think maybe bronze for positions like navigation and helm.  If you look closely, they are made of a mesh of very tiny Starfleet insignia.  The Starfleet insignia on the chest also has different colors to reflect divisions, and that is where the rank insignia pips are in this incarnation of Trek.  The space suit helmet liner also had Starfleet insignia fabric. Note that the admiral’s insignia is different and does not have pips.

Yes, I know that in this era, every starship has a different insignia, and what I call the Starfleet insignia is really only assigned to the Enterprise.  But I do like the visual continuity that its consistent use provides.  


Professionalism in Starfleet

The entire first officer nerve pinching the captain, mutinying, and then the captain pulling a phaser on the first officer doesn’t really work very well.  It is part of the set-up of Michael is a disgraced convict, about to be pulled into risky events, but it isn’t how Starfleet officers behave in MY Star Trek universe.  

Nobody in Starfleet would imagine themselves getting away with this.  Spock didn’t even imagine himself getting away with hijacking the Enterprise to Talos IV, although his plan allowed him to not get caught for longer.


The Galactic Vicinity

We’re told that the Andorian colony at Gamma Hydra is six light years away. Gamma Hydra is where the Enterprise was going in the Kobyashoi Maru exercise. This means that the double star setting of these two episodes is near the location of the future Klingon neutral zone. Gamma Hydra is also mentioned in passing in other past Trek episodes.

Really, the whole basis for the conflict in Discovery is a bit strained. 

“This is Federation space.  Retreat is not an option.”  Who says its Federation space?  

It’s an uninhabited binary system with stars still forming.  There is no indigenous species. The implication is that the Federation just out-and-out annexed it by fiat. 

I was also troubled by the Sarek-Michael telepathic conversation while they were 1,000 light years apart. Sarek says that part of his Katra is in her, which of the Vulcan consciousness.  Basically, Michael is apparently like one of Voldemort’s horcruxes?  

Oh, and 1,000 light years away, Sarek already knew that there was a “new star in the sky” after only a few minutes?  That is not a reference to invisible subspace signals, but rather to light, which would take, oh, 1,000 years to get to him.


Formula Plot Elements

There were several elements of this story that draw on common screen writing formulae that you see all over the place, if you know what to look for.  

Formula scenes include the opening scenes that set the tone of the story, the catalyst that changes everything, the main character making a choice that defines the “journey,” The Dark Night of the Soul in which the main character struggles with hopelessness (the brig scene), and others.

I can see many of these elements in episodes 1 and 2.  Of course, the story continues for 11 more episodes, so they may be stretched out, or we may see the formula being repeated time after time in the subsections of the story.

However...formula plot elements are not automatically bad.  Because they contain elements of familiarity, the audience relates to them easily, making it easy to engage with the story.  (For more information on a very widely-used formula, see this link.)    


Final Thoughts

There are plenty of additional things from these two episodes that could be mentioned.  But I think I have given an example of productions such as Discovery working on many levels, and having many factors that affect them.

Discovery plays fast and loose with certain points of Star Trek continuity.  The richly developed world defined by this continuity is what appeals to many long-term fans. Bit I think my many examples show that in every case where Discovery deviates, it is for a practical “works better for the audience” reason, and as I have shows here, the audience they are catering to is the newer fans they hope to attract, not the entrenched long-term fans.

First Reaction: Star Trek Discovery

Star Trek Discovery offers some things for long-term fans, but really is Trek for a new generation, and I don't mean that figuratively.  

It is designed to match the experiences and viewing habits of younger people, who are considerably different from the older, veteran fans.

(Spoilers three paragraphs below this point.)

Before we go any further, we need to accept that this new incarnation of Star Trek exists to make money. It is not a "service" for fans. It is not a reward for the long wait since the last "new" Trek episode, May 13, 2005.  

It was created to be a profit center.

Let me say it another way: The ONLY reason that CBS decided to make Star Trek Discovery is the likelihood of return on investment and profitability. 

The problem is that while Trek has been a cash cow for the studios over the years, the spendable income in the United States today resides in the younger demographics, such as 18-49.  So, to succeed, the new series must appeal to them, as the current generation of "customers."

So we [spoilers] get a 13-episode story arc about war with the Klingons, with the main character being a court-martialed and jailed Starfleet officer who apparently becomes central to the outcome of the war.

To the veteran fans, Star Trek has done extended war stories before, in Deep Space Nine and Enterprise. We have even had main characters convicted and sent to prison. So this comes off feeling like a retread of things past.  

But the younger fans have been weaned on a diet of Game of Thrones, and endless similar Dystopian story lines. Their frame of reference in fiction is anti-heroes and, more generally, unlikable people doing unethical things to each other.

The producers had a huge challenge to a) create something that could legitimately be called Star Trek, but also b) create something that would feel familiar, and therefore appeal to the generation that made Game of Thrones, The Hunger Games, Divergent, and Twilight hits 

So we have a disgraced Starfleet Officer who gets pulled into the cauldron of wartime events, in a context that is generally based on past Star Trek -- the Federation, Klingons and Vulcans, generally familiar weaponry and technology, and other side allusions and terminology that are derived from past Trek.

The point I made about familiarity is very important. Familiar situations are easy for viewers to relate to.  That is why all starship bridges look roughly the same, across Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica (both of them), Star Wars, GalaxyQuest, Forbidden Planet, etc.  That is why cthe chains of command on starships are always more or less the same.  Commanders always have chairs.  It is familiarity factor.

The characters also tend to be familiar -- the captain, the first officer, the engineer. In general terms, we know what they are going to do before they do it, because it is all familiar.

Therefore, our stories don't need to explain all of that.  We can just move ahead to the elements of the story that are unique to us.  It is these innovations, or things that are different from all the other stories, that are seen as being "creative."

For Discovery, it is not what is familiar to the old folks who don't spend as much money.  It is the younger 18-49 year old demographic that has the money to spend on Trek stuff, and on the things the advertisers want them to buy.

But these things are not the only way that Star Trek Discovery is customized to the younger folks.

Did you notice that there was no To be continued at the end of the episodes?  They just stopped, and the next episodes pick up at the same place.  That is the binge watching dynamic. Yes, the new episodes will come out week-by-week, but CBS clearly expects the long-term revenue to be from binge watchers.

About 9.6 million people watched the premiere episode on the broadcast CBS network. That doesn't sound bad, but the adults 18-49 rating/share was a 1.9/7, which is only decent, not fantastic. CBSAllAccess had a record number of sign-ups, but we have no information about the demographics, i.e. the ages of people paying to see Discovery up-front.

So I am sorry to say that many of the long-term Star Trek fans may not be as interested in Discovery.  But the series is not made for them.  It is made for people young enough that previous Trek was before their time.

Because new fans means new merchandising, new streaming revenue, and highly desirable audiences for advertiser commercials.  Plus some of those folks may be intrigued to check out the older Trek series and merchandise as well, thus refreshing that demand, also.

What I'm Looking for in Star Trek Discovery

I have largely been avoiding the studio/network hype about the new Star Trek series. But I have very clear ideas about what I am looking for, and what don't want to see.

Let me preface my comments by saying that I watched the very first broadcast of Star Trek in the United States in 1966.  I have seen every Star Trek episode and movie, and read quite a few of the books.

I know first hand WHY Star Trek became so popular in the 1960s and 70s -- its unique spirit of hope for a positive future, coming in a time characterized by summer-long race riots in major cities, a military draft sending young men off to die in what was widely considered to be a unjust war, and of course the country trearing itself apart over Watergate. This social context is mostly lost on young people watching the old episodes today.

In many ways, Star Trek functions as a modern myth.  It is a story told time-after-time, with variations each time. But the underlying message of hope, ethics, diversity, and professional behavior always remains (at least when Trek is done well).  These are the things that will determine how much I like what I see in "DSC."

So here are seven things I want, or do not want, in the new Star Trek series when it premiers this coming Sunday:

1.  I want to see professional officers treating each other with respect, even when under duress. The recent avalanche across the media of unlikable characters doing unethical things to each other leaves me totally uninterested.  It is called "Dystopian" storytelling, because it represents the opposite of the "Utopian" ideal society.  It is lazy storytelling and does not belong in Star Trek, in my opinion.

2.  I don't care if the starships and sets don't perfectly fit the feel of being a decade before the Original Series Enterprise. Because Discovery is basically "retelling the myth" the producers are allowed to employ modern production design, in my opinion.  But I will like when there are resonances.

3.  I want thoughtful, nuanced scripts that have subtle layers of meaning, and do not depend on unlikely coincidences to advance the plot. One of the things that long-term fans want most, I think, is solid stories that aren't filled with plot holes.  this is why many are unhappy withe ht J.J. Abrams movies - the plot holes.

4.  Oh, and bad guys need to make sense. Too often in all the media, bad guys are bad just for the sake of being bad. On the other hand, Khan was such a powerful and popular villain because we COULD clearly understand the circumstances that led him to hate Kirk.  I like nuanced antagonists with motivation that makes sense.

5.  On a related note, Klingons have been done to death in Trek.  Given that we have them yet again, I do not want them to be cardboard.  Theirs is a rich culture with both positive and negative things in its history. I hope they come cross as more than aggressive jerks.

6. When they do reference characters from The Original Series, like Sarek or Harry Mudd, I want them to feel like the same characters, even though they are played by different actors.  Don't "reimagine" them.

7.  I must say that the highly detailed continuity of Star Trek appeals to me. I do not mind DSC filling in gaps, but I really don't want the producers contradicting something that is well established in on-screen Trek, just for expediency.  All science fiction includes world building. This world of Star Trek is already rich and complex. I want DSC to work within it.

So there you have it -- what I am looking for in the new incarnation of Star Trek. I understand that I am too old be in the target demographic CBS is looking for with this new series.  But that doesn't mean that I am not entitled to evaluate how closely the network is supporting the long-term "brand identify" of Star Trek.

Five strategies to get the most from your online marketing

I have worked and taught in the field of media all my life, so I know the important role that advertising plays in providing the profitability which allows content that serves the public.

But online advertising often isn't accomplishing what it should.

This article makes a couple of important points, showing that online advertising is far from a mature industry, and often does not accomplish the goals of the advertiser.

Procter & Gamble cut more than $100 million in digital marketing spending in the June quarter but there was little impact on its business, proving that their digital ads were largely ineffective. 

The two most common complaints about digital advertising are that 1) advertisers are paying for ads that are viewed and clicked on by bots, not humans; and 2) ads are placed by thousands of automated “ad exchanges” that are out of control of the advertiser on sites and pages that don’t match the advertiser’s products.

I have been teaching for almost 20 years that the Internet should be seen in terms of the relationships it facilitates, not in terms of the technology.  I am fully convinced that the Internet, websites, and social media can be used to foster beneficial relationships between businesses/organizations and their customers/constituents.  But I am not convinced that display advertising, inserted into websites and social media feeds, is the way to do it.

It is relatively easy to create an ad and then pay one of these ad exchanges to place the add in various sites and feeds THEY choose, based on the demographic information YOU specify. They later tell you how many users saw or clicked on the advertisement.  As the article explains, there is great potential for the advertiser to be deceived about effectiveness, due to automated click bots, or the ad exchange putting the ads in bogus (or shall we say suboptimal) locations.

So how SHOULD businesses and organizations use social media and the Internet to promote their brand?

Here are my five strategies to get the most value out of your online marketing communications:

1.  You have to engage in TWO-WAY interaction with your audience

Give them content that is relevant to their interests and when they respond, respond BACK to them to show them you are listening.  This takes time, planning, and smarts.

The social media, itself, may be free, but the bigger your organization is, the more people hours and budget it takes to plan and create the content, to listen around the clock, and to make replies and help solve problems, all while perfectly aligning with your brand image and brand promise.

This process doesn't work via one-way advertising.

2.  Use strong CONTENT MARKETING 

People respond positively when the messages they receive are relevant to them. Messages that are not relevant get ignored, and frequent irrelevant messages may result in unfollowing.  This is why businesses and organizations need to REALLY understand their customers -- who and where they are, their interests, and why they are or should be interested in what WE have to offer.

The highly-relevant content we create may be posted right in our social media feeds. It might be in a blog or other format that is linked to from our social media.  But is also needs to be well-optimized for search engines, because the specific topic of the one particular content piece may be what allows someone to find us and decide to like/follow us.

This content will surely include text, but also video, graphics, and photography custom-produced for your social media posts.

3.  Time of day you post is really important

Post your content at a time when YOUR people are most likely to be reading, so your content does not scroll down and get lost in the clutter.  Some platforms may TELL you when your people are on.  If not, you can experiment with posts in different day parts.

4.  Call to Action

Every post should be crafted to stimulate some kind of action, even as simple as liking the post.

In persuasion theory, the way to get people to do BIG things is to first get them to agree to little things, and to then lead them along, step-by-step, toward the bigger things. These little things, as simple as liking or sharing, gets their thinking aligned the way you want, so when the bigger need or opportunity arises, they are pre-disposed to take the important action steps you want.

So EVERY content post should include some form of call to action.

5.  Seek both frequency and reach

For decades, the dual emphases for advertising have been frequency and reach.

Reach means you DO want to get your message to as many people as possible, to help find prospects, i.e. people with whom you are not in contact.  Your goal in online reach should be to get people to like/follow your feeds, or otherwise make initial contact.

But for building and strengthening the relationship between you and your constituents, the frequency of interaction is vital. The more positive contacts your audience has with you, the more likely they are to buy (or do whatever the action goals of your organization are), and this is driven by the frequency of contacts.

Of course, don't overwhelm them with 147 posts a day.  Find the daily or weekly frequency that is right for you and them.

The balance between frequency and reach may be different for different businesses/organizations, but remember that they do different things and your online marketing content should never be only one or the other.

Reach is making initial contact.  Freqency is about cementing the relationship.


Final Thoughts

Lots of people think that if they USE social media, they will automatically be effective at marketing via social media.  Not really true.

There are many dimensions that must be accounted for and planned in social media marketing that go way beyond being a user.

I'll be teaching an online course on social media marketing in the spring semester through my school, Wayne State College. It will be regular tuition, but anyone anywhere can enroll, in a degree program or not, for undergraduate or graduate credit.

If you're interested, let me know.  Registration will be in October.

 

Understanding Weather and Climate via Chaos Theory

I am not a mathematician, but I have published in the academic press on the subject of Complex Dynamic Systems, aka Chaos Theory, which certainly applies to weather and climate. But many Americans still don't understand how interconnected everything is when it comes to weather and climate. That makes it harder for some to accept human-caused climate change.

In Chaos Theory, tiny variations can grow to have huge effects in a dynamic system.  Weather and climate are such a dynamic system.

This article from Bloomberg shows how the LACK of warmer-than-average water in the Pacific Ocean (El Niño) results in worst-than-normal hurricanes in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico. Dry air blowing dust off of Africa’s Sahara Desert also plays a role in making bad hurricanes.

We know that warmer temperatures in the Arctic can mean colder North American winters, even though it seems counter-intuitive.

But logial falacies still persist:

"It's cold today, so there can't be global warning." 

"It snowed lot today, so there can't be global warming."

"There's no way to know what the temperature was before thermometers were invented, or before they were brought to such-and-such a location."

Each of these statements shows lack of critical thinking, yet each is common. And this makes it EASY for deniers to reinforce these wrong ideas.

The motivation of the big businesses that lobby against addressing climate change is short-term profits.  Big business is SO geared to quarterly profits reports that it has trouble seeing the long-term big picture.

Sooner or later, big business will conclude that climate change is bad for business. Insurance companies are getting a reminder in the wake of the huge hurricanes in the last several days, with billions of dollars of damages the insurance companies will need to pay out.  There is only so much they can get the government to pay for.

What I have never understood is that big companies DO make long term plans to improve profits, such as building new facilities that will take years to come online. Why can't they take the same approach to reducing carbon dioxide pollution NOW to leverage for greater profits in the future.  

We know that warming of the ocean and atmosphere is resulting in a higher rate of "extreme weather events."  What we used to call "extreme" is getting closer and closer to the new normal, unless we do something about it.

The Orville

The Orville premiered on FOX this evening.  What did I think of this new series that combines comedy and drama in a space travel SF series?

I must confess that I have been looking forward to this series since I first heard about it, because I like science fiction about likable characters who are professional, yet fun.

The reviews from people who have seen advance screenings were not helpful helpful. Predictably, reviews from science fictiony sources tended to be more positive, whereas reviews from other kinds of media observers were not.  So I have been waiting to see for myself.

Well -- I liked it.

I'm not talking about the plot in this post, other than to say that there was some nice drama, with lots of comedic asides thrown in.

One of the things I liked most was something that some of the reviewers have panned -- that so much of the pilot episode was so familiar.  Stylistically, The Orville draws on Star Trek, plus a few tributes to GalaxyQuest and at least one scene that reminded me of a Firefly scene.

I think the producers made many of their scenes familiar as a way of drawing in viewers.

Fans KNOW that the captain does a grand fly-around of the new starship. It just seemed right.  We know that when the ship first leaves the spacedock/space station, there is grand music as it pulls away.  We are not surprised by a holodeck, but a certain plot twist involving a holodeck character feels creative.

When I teach media criticism, we learn that so many stories are similar in broad brush strokes because familiarity makes them accessible to the audience.  The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and the original Star Wars all follow basically the same plot outline, based on Joseph Campbell's "Heroes Journey."

Because many stories are so similar, the creativity is in the innovation, or what is different and surprising. Joss Whedon is particularly good at appearing to take a story in a familiar direction, but then having it turn into something unexpected.

Malcolm Reyonds saying "If I'm not back in one hour you take the ship and you...come rescue me" is a perfect example of this, because we EXPECT him to say "get the crew to safety."

The Orville makes use of this expected/unexpected formula.  There are many elements that we find familiar from Star Trek and other past space travel series, which give a comfortable feel to the story. But there are surprises and new situations, as well.

Truth be told, there are also a few juvenile echos from creator and star Seth McFarland's "Family Guy" which I could have lived without, but they did not overwhelm the story.

First episodes of any series are usually a little uneven.  Episode one of The Orville is enough to get me to watch again next week, which is the main goal of a pilot episode. I think that there is some good potential here.

What is a reporter's job, really?

Many people today misunderstand what a reporter does, and how the reporter is supposed to do the job. The reason is that there are so many people out there writing things that seem like they are journalism, but are not.

The pictured tweet is a reminder to reporters to be persistent, but for those of you who have never BEEN a reporter, let's try to understand more about the job really is.

News Judgment

The definition of what is, or is not, news is complex, because it can vary from day to day.  When a hurricane hits Texas or Florida, most other things are not news.  The same stories might get a lot of attention on another day, when the weather is fine.

But my working definition of news is things that are out of the ordinary.  Another way of saying that is things that are "new, different, or changing."  Same-old-same-old is not news.  "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead" is not news.

Reporter's Opinion

The reporter is not supposed to be part of the story.  In particular, the reporter's opinion is not supposed to be stated, or even allowed creep in.

Any opinion or value judgment in a professionally-writtten news story must be attributed to someone.  If no source for a value judgment is stated, then the "story" is not news.

The only things that do not need to be attributed in journalistic writing are facts that are "widely known or easily verifiable." We don't need to quote a source as saying that a hurricane hit Texas, but we DO need to quote sources concerning details of damage, etc.

Furthermore, if there are multiple legitimate sides to the story, they must all be told, and in a way that each side perceives the story as fairly representing their position. But note the word "legitimate."  We do not need to place the Flat Earth Society on an equal footing with astronomers in our eclipse stories.

Be persistent

As the Overheard in the Newsroom quote suggests, a reporter must be persistent. A reporter cannot be helpless, just because some official does not call back.  A reporter must try again and again.  Email, phone, go to the person's office, camp out on their home front steps (if it is an important enough story).

If it is a story worth covering, it MUST be covered, whether that one person calls back or not.  There are other people who you can find to interview and quote, even if they are not the ideal person, who has failed to call back.

Follow the story

Once a reporter has reported on a story, developments in the story must also be reported.

If we report that someone is arrested for something, we need to report on what happens when the person gets to court.

When President Gerald Ford tripped a couple of times on camera, it then became an expectation that future klutz moments must also be reported.

When President Trump was found to be tweeting inaccurate information, future inaccurate tweets also had to be reported.

Sometimes journalism is a "one and done" story, but more often, it is following a developing story, even if the developments come weeks apart.

Get details right

I tell my news writing students to quadruple check facts.  Reporters cannot make assumptions, misquote, or allow other inaccuracies into their stories.  Accuracy is one of the things that separates journalism from advocacy using journalistic formats.

Avoid anonymous sources

Yes, that's right, "avoid."

Journalistic standards say we can ONLY cite anonymous sources when the source could be threatened with punishment or could otherwise come to harm from having the source's name known publicly.

There is some wiggle room here.  Often we hear about a "White House staff member familiar with the issue" and we know that it is actually a coordinated intentional release, but they just don't want a particular name associated with the information.

So what?

There's a lot more to a reporter's job, of course, like complying with AP style, strong leads, use of effective quotes...

But in today's environment of persuasion cloaked in trappings of journalism, it can be hard for the general public to understand why journalists do what they do, even when there are strong ethical and professional reasons.  It is even more complicated when politicians criticize journalists for doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

We need to remember "Caveat Emptor," or "let the buyer beware" and bring our critical thinking to bear.  Much of what you initially think is "news" is really propaganda and persuasion.  Just because you may agree with the conclusions of some article you read does not mean it properly tells all sides of a story, or is even true.

The Psychology of Colors

I tell my marketing communication students that every detail of the communication between a business or organization and its constituents must reinforce the fundamental positioning and brand promise of the organization. This includes the colors used in visual communication.

My friend and former student Rhea tweeted a link to the infographic at the bottom of this page, reminding me of a design course I previously taught in which we addressed the meaning conveyed by colors.  It shows why businesses select the colors used in their logos and marketing materials VERY carefully.

Take oil company logos, for example.  Many of them make strong use of red to signalled power, energy, and boldness. Blue represents trust and loyalty, and the white stands for cleanliness and purity.  Gulf's orange represents nature, confidence, and innovation. These colors support the image the company want to project, or at least did in years past, when the logos were created.



But British Petroleum uses green, signalling health, nature, and prosperity, with shades of yellow for optimism and happiness, and white for cleanliness and purity.

See also how the symbolism of these colors reflects how BP wants to be seen today? NOT as polluting and reaping windfall profits but rather as safe, clean, and worthwhile?

Colors are a powerful tool for conveying meaning in visual communications.  They are "subtext," or meaning below the surface, and connotations.  But the meaning is still there, serving the desired brand image of the company.

(The colors and meanings in the infographic are for Western culture.  In Eastern, culture, there are some differences.)

Next time you look at a favorite company's logo, check to see what meaning the color(s) convey.

The original post is at: 

https://iconicfox.com.au/2017/07/27/colour-in-branding-infographic/

Killjoys renewed, Dark Matter canceled - It's just business

Fans are scratching their heads because the Syfy Channel has announced the cancellation of Dark Matter, but the renewal of Killjoys.

This is a perfect example of the disconnect between how the fans see entertainment TV, and how the networks are actually run.

The simple truth is that every TV network, cable channel, and streaming service exists to make money.  Decisions about programming are always driven by considerations of profit.  Serving the audience with good programming is HOW they make money, but the business GOAL is making money, not serving the audience. It's just business.

I have been looking through the ratings information at tvseriesfinale.com and trying to understand the Syfy decision to renew one series but cancel the other.  Both were promoted in 2015 as the cable channel returning to its roots of space-based science fiction.  Both were outside acquisitions, not projects developed internally by Syfy.

Dark Matter averaged 614,000 viewers this season compared to 676,000 viewers last season. Killjoys averaged 627,000 viewers this season, down slightly from 644,000 last season. Industry-wide, declines of 25% are not unusual, as more and more people "cut the cord."

Those totals seem pretty close together, and it may seem bewildering that Syfy has renewed shows with considerably fewer total viewers, like The Expanse (562,000), Channel Zero (543,000), and Wynonna Erp (499,000).

But when we look at ratings from the 18-49 demographic, it makes a lot more sense. Advertisers love the 18-49 demographic because they are most likely to spend money. It's just business.

Killjoys captured an average of 17% of all television households in its timeslot this past season, which is down 5.56% from the previous season. Dark Matter got 15% of television households, down 12.67%, compared to the previous season.

Dark Matter WAS getting high viewership in online and time shifted viewing via DVRs and trackable (non-pirated) streaming views, sometimes doubling its audience or more, compared to the "live" cable feeds.  But such additional viewers may not be as valuable to the Syfy revenue stream.  

Syfy has renewed every current show getting 17% or higher of television households, and canceled every show with 16% or lower.  There is obviously some sort of threshold above which they consider a series to have profit potential, and below which there is not enough return on investment.  It's just business.

Television IS a business (broadcast, cable, and streaming). They spend money to develop and air series, or to purchase outside productions, and they need a return on investment from those expenditures. They make money by selling advertising. Advertisers spend their money on shows that will give them the best audience for their specific products, at appropriate cost. It's just business.

If the ratings of a show are too low, meaning not enough people watch, Syfy can't sell enough advertising in the program, because it's not a good enough deal for the advertisers. Or they have to charge less, meaning Syfy makes less money.  When Syfy makes less money, the investors also don't make as much money, and they consider firing the executives who didn't make enough money.  It's just business.

Syfy is owned by NBCUniversal, which also owns NBC, The Weather Channel, E!, Oxygen, Bravo, and the USA Network, among others.  Each one provides advertisers with a different demographic, not just in terms of age, but also in terms of interests that advertisers can match with their products.

Note that the network and advertiser analysis of ratings includes online viewing within a week of the cable broadcast (via legal DVR and streaming services).  But if your plan is to wait a few months and then binge-watch a series, your viewing is NOT part of the calculation about whether to renew or not.

Consumers generally to not understand these business considerations.  Cost versus revenue, and return on investment, however, are the primary considerations for which series are picked up and renewed, and which are not.  It's just business.

If you are interested in more about the Dark Matter decision, read this blog post from executive producer Joseph Mallozzi.

Tax cuts do not create new jobs

Federal tax reform is on the agenda for Congress again, and that means another round of the tried and true Republican goal of tax cuts for the rich (which never really works to help the economy).

The problem is that jobs are created when the current workforce of a company can't keep up with sales and operation of the business. Tax cuts are not what creates jobs.

Hiring employees you don't need is bad business. A smart manager wouldn't do this, because it increases expenses while not increasing profits.

Tax cuts mean more dividends or direct income for the investors, meaning more money for their lifestyles, and/or to invest in the stock of still more businesses.

If you really want to stimulate the economy, the way to do it is to increase middle and lower class consumer spending. Stimulating local spending percolates money up to the top of the economy as increased sales, in turn making more money for the rich AND requiring more jobs to fulfill demand. How do you do this?

• Increase minimum wage
• Reduce student loan debt
• Control against inflation
• Don't do stupid stuff that reduces consumer confidence
• There are plenty of other things, too.

(Let me note, by the way, that once a business HAS decided to expand, tax INCENTIVES are a great way to recruit new business to YOUR community, such as tax increment districts in which the company pays reduced taxes for a certain number of years, while their facility ramps up productivity. But that is different from "tax cuts for the rich.")

We have known for weeks that corporate tax cuts were on the conservative agenda for this winter, seeking more profits for owners and investors. It's certain rich people who push this through large campaign contributions and lobbying, like the Koch brothers, because it means more money in THEIR pockets.

Don't believe the rhetoric that if you are a conservative/Republican/patriot you MUST support tax cuts for the rich.  It doesn't stand up to critical thinking and doesn't benefit the economy much.