Newshour Sheds Light on Changes

I asked a lot of questions in my blog post yesterday about the new alliance between PBS Newshour, my favorite weekday television news program, and an online news outfit in Boston called GlobalPost. GlobalPost is a privately funded and fairly new online news venture that offers international coverage.

While, on one hand, a spokesperson for GlobalPost responded in a curiously confrontational manner – especially for a fairly new “news” organization – I just received far more professional and enlightening perspective from Newshour about their program changes (what do you expect?)

• Will Newshour’s long-time relationship with London-based ITN change? The answer is No.
• Why make this change? Newshour says:

“It is just one way we are expanding our international coverage. Far from outsourcing, Margaret Warner and Ray Suarez will be reporting from the field MORE, not less. This is already in place … case in point, Margaret’s recent trip to Pakistan and Afghanistan, Ray’s reporting from Mexico. Foreign field reporting by NewsHour correspondents will continue to expand – as our Global Health Unit continues to thrive as well as our other international reporting efforts. The relationship with GlobalPost adds to our current efforts by giving us greater responsiveness and versatility as events happen around the globe where they already have reporters on the ground.”

Newshour notes that while the program will be working collaboratively with the GlobalPost correspondents and jointly producing segments, The NewsHour will maintain editorial control at all times.

Thanks, Newshour. That’s very helpful.

Now, from the level of professional communications, compare the clear and helpful response from Newshour versus the confrontational demands and threats from GlobalPost. Night and day. Seasoned PR pro versus PR amateur, in my opinion. But, I also wonder whether GlobalPost’s response reflects an unusual hint of news management or just a PR gaff?

GlobalPost responded today by demanding that my blog post be removed. I’ve never before heard of a so-called news organization making such a demand because it flies in the face of free speech.

The guy at GlobalPost used words like “disparage” which is legal saber-rattling. Why not just a response laying out their position, as they see it? Why don’t they just say they went online in January 2009 and explain what they’ve done in the last eleven months?

GlobalPost, in my opinion, was created to take advantage of the need television news organizations have for international coverage at a much lower cost. Foreign bureaus are expensive. Stringers are not. The TV networks … and all of TV news … are struggling financially. They can no longer afford foreign bureaus. GlobalPost answers a need – cheaper international coverage. But, I ask … at what cost to us, the viewers?

Filed Under: Featured • News Media

Tags: NewsHour