It’s really a given that the public is increasingly seeking its news not from mainstream television networks or the ever-disappearing daily newspapers, but rather from surfing online, giving us the leeway to essentially behave as our own editor, seeking out news that best coincides with our own point of view, rather than hear, watch and read what is offered up by mainstream media.  Nicholas Negroponte of M.I.T. cleverly coined it ‘The Daily Me’  — a fictitious online publication of our own making.

According to an editorial by Nicholas Kristof printed in last week’s edition of the European Herald Tribune, he makes a scary point –  “there’s pretty good evidence that we generally don’t truly want good information — but rather information that confirms our prejudices.” And then Kristof adds, “The effect of The Daily Me would be to insulate us further in our own hermetically sealed political chambers.”

As depressing as it sounds, I believe that there is nothing new in that.  In fact a version of ‘The Daily Me’ exists both on the Internet and in mainstream media, for the public has always hunted for news outlets that agree with their own positions.  For example, with mainstream media, we either read liberal publications or conservative ones, but rarely both. We either select to watch Keith Olberman or Bill O’Reilly, but never both.  In surfing the Internet for news, we are not really changing what we have always done – hear, watch and read like-minded columnist and broadcasters.

I agree with Kristof’s suggestion, that of the  ‘Daily Mental Workout’, akin to a trip to the gym as our only salvation from digging ourselves deeper into one-mindedness.  According to Kristof, “if you don’t work up a sweat, it doesn’t count” meaning it will take that extra mental effort to put a halt to our preference for editing out the opponent’s point of view.

As difficult as this may be, it really is our only deliverance from the divisiveness that has engulfed us.  It will take individual discipline to really adopt a ‘Daily Mental Workout’ and sweat through our own narrow-mindedness and pre-conceptions to effect a change.

First we have the “dump ten friends and get a Whopper from Burger King” online promo, which I commented on in my blog entry on January 13.  OK, as obscene as this was, it was at the very least “interactive”  — the mantra of social media — in that one had to “do something” to “get something.”   Of course, what one had to do was anti-social.  So much for “social media.”

Along came Quiznos, with its try at connecting to the online community, but the interactivity consisted only of “sign up with us and you get a free Sub.”

Then came Moosejaw.com whose shoppers were offered an e-gift card for up to 25 percent off the amount of a previous order, only if they bought Chinese food.  Shoppers were instructed to calculate 25 percent of their Moosejaw purchase¹s total, and spend that amount on Chinese food.  A meal receipt and the Moosejaw order number was required to redeem the offer.

It seems to me that we have entered the next iteration of the old coupon-cutting routine.

But along came yet another food giveaway promotion that seemed really out of line, as to taste.  I read a report by Kenneth Hein in Brandweek, March 13, touting Domino’s pizza’s new “Super Big Taste Bailout” promotion.  Apparently, consumers will be encouraged to nominate a friend in need of a bailout and winners will receive a pizza.  And a pizza can do that – bail someone out?

Of course it’s a play on words, but poor taste in piggybacking on a word that deals with pain and angst, whether GM or a single homeowner – and definitely sounds opportunistic.  When asked by Brandweek why the use of “bailout” in the promo, CMO Rusell Weiner blatantly replied, “The topicality. Banks and Corporate America are getting bailouts funded by taxpayers. Domino’s bailout is for those who need it most right now—hardworking American families.”

Hope the pizza leaves a better taste in the mouth than the campaign.

According to a new report by Forrester Research covered by Brian Morrissey in Adweek,  “social media has not yet entered the marketing mainstream and is largely relegated to experimental budgets.”

It shows.  I believe that it is not as much about budgets as it is about a creative bent and imagination to propel interactivity, best left to the communication experts who understand how to relate to the media and trigger participation  – social or not.

No, this is not a riddle, but a point of contention if you are Haagen-Dazs and have decreased the size of “pints” from 16 ounces to 14 ounces. 

The issue is that competitor Ben and Jerry’s is making ‘hay’ out of this and holding Haagen-Dazs up for ridicule.  According to Emily Bryson York’s article in AdAge.com, “Ben and Jerry ‘s is mounting a pint-sized assault on rival ounces and calls out Haagen-Dazs on the shrinkage.”  It’s not really pint sized — calling the competitor’s move to sell 14-ounce pints, “Downright Wrong.”

I agree that a 14 is never a 16, unless you are myopic and then change in packaging size, being so slight, goes unnoticed.  But Haagen-Dazs is not alone in shrinking product.  Have you noticed how 16 ounces of coffee have become 12, and that a dozen eggs, have become 10?  What about potato chips that barely fill half a bag?  Several brands have begun decreasing package sizes, hoping that it will go unnoticed.  Driven by increased pressure from consumers to have lower prices, retailers have turned on package-food companies to comply with demand.  And so shrinkage happens…

But the public is not duped.  Brand loyalty starts to waiver.  A pint’s size is what it is – a pint.  Standard measurement.

However, in principle, I agree with Haagen-Dazs that it is preferable to shrink a portion, rather than raise the price, especially now. This, I think, consumers can bear and support if they are told up front, which they were not.  The company relied on its website statement that talked about the costs of things, listing gasoline and increased ingredient and manufacturing costs.

That’s not what I think a loyal customer wants to hear.

My sense is that what they want to hear is that everyone is in this economic plight together, including large brands such as Haagen-Dazs and that the ice cream company cares for its customer in not sacrificing its high quality and taste, nor raising its prices but, of necessity, shrinking size.

Just like that.  Straight forward.

I believe that Haagen-Dazs, with just a little more transparency and better choice of language in how they told their size-pinching story, could have avoided both competitor’s ridicule and consumers’ ire.

Ben and Jerry’s thinks size matters.  I disagree. I think being straight matters.  Call it something else, but pints don’t change their ounces.

Look, most everybody gets their news online, so what was all the fuss about Denver’s recently shuttered Rocky Mountain News or the rumors about the possibility of a shut down for the Seattle Post Intelligencer or whatever is next?

The thinning of newspapers has been obvious.  It’s been blamed on disappearing advertising dollars, resulting in disappearing revenues, resulting in disappearing staffers, resulting in less journalistic talent, resulting in making newspapers on the short list of things becoming obsolete.

Not so fast…

Blogger TJ Sullivan has taken up the cause and founded Know Newspaper, to promote the Web blackout petition which urges a complete shut down of all news web sites to non-paying subscribers for one week from July 4- July 10, 2009, allowing only for published news in print.

Madness!  What is the point?

According to Sullivan most news outlets, whether online news sites, radio or TV, look to the morning dailies before assigning and assembling their own reports.  As such, evening news is mostly a regurgitation of what was already reported (minus breaking news, of course).  If that’s true, then it is the print journalists that deserve the credit for uncovering news and making sense of what matters and what doesn’t.  Still, if newspapers get shut down, most likely somebody else will uncover the news…

But the case to be made for reading newspapers, is in the detail of the story, that rarely gets heard or seen.  Clearly it can get read online, but the format is more for quick glances, promotes short attention spans and allows for a lot of ‘flitting’ – clicking over a number of sites to get more bits and pieces of evermore information, rather than an evaluation or an analysis of a single piece of news in depth.

And I do believe the community is better served by its own voice – in print.  What the Rocky Mountain News would cover (other than front page news) would have nothing to do with what the Seattle Post Intelligencer or the Atlanta Constitution would cover.   Sure, the newspapers’ sites would carry this information, but then we go back to the format that does not lend itself to any depth.

There is something else that is troubling here…

As I wrote in a blog entry on February 11, consumers don’t generally bother to check the source of their online news, so ‘amateur’ or ‘social journalism’ can ‘trump’ respected journalists.

I agree with Sullivan.  It’s a sad commentary if we let more American newspapers fade into oblivion, notwithstanding their online presence.

Besides, how would my morning coffee ritual happen without my morning newspaper?

This past week’s news reports were hard on anybody’s digestion, what with the economy spiraling in the wrong direction again, a Turkish flight that crashed in Amsterdam’s airport, President Obama taking on Congress, the re-thinking of troop withdrawal from Iraq, the tremors running through the national financial sector as to the “nationalization” of US banks, not to speak of the frightening and escalating percentages of foreclosures.

Being in Europe at this time, and reading local German news, gave me a moment to reflect how very serious and analytical the reporting is around here.  Sure the Germans have their outlandish tabloids, but the respected mainstream media does take itself very seriously indeed.

So I found it superficial at the inordinate amount of time that CNN’s Jeanne Moos chose to spend making sure that Joe Biden’s latest blooper — about asking for a website “number” rather than the URL or address, becomes top news.  OK, I understand that Jeanne Moos’ style was true to her “brand.”  But it is a judgment call as to whether CNN should just have “shrugged” or maybe let Biden have his usual sheepish smile and gotten off the subject or whether a Vice President of the US should be called out and subjected to far-reaching ridicule for using incorrect lingo.

The Biden “bloop” circled around the web with the “speed of sound,” mercilessly, I would say. One thing is to show the lack of Internet currency on a campaign trail, as was the case with McCain, a time when competency can be a competitive advantage — and another, is to subject the current Vice President of the US to mockery, just so that the media can inject a moment of light-hearted fun.

It wasn’t fun, rather a frivolous waste of news time.