Smart Phones: The Key to Comprehensive Employee Communications

In this video from Ragan Communications, Shel Holtz discusses how the smart phone is not only the future of web access and social media, but that they will also be the answer to comprehensive and effective employee communications.



With the invention of smart phones, iPads and similar technology, I wonder if anyone will have a computer or laptop in 10 years. They are likely to be considered antiques to the next generation!

Comment Boards Disabled Indefinitely on KSL.com

Salt Lake City's KSL.com indefinitely disabled its comments boards today in, "an effort to improve community dialogue." Parent company Deseret Digital Media (DDM) says it will, "gather and analyze feedback from its users as it aims to provide more civil community discourse." DDM is also taking steps to improve the quality and civility of comments on the boards of KSL.com's sister company, the Deseret News. In a statement today, DDM said:

We believe that public forums come with the responsibility both on the part of the media company and the users. Over the past year, ksl.com has invested significant resources toward improving the level of dialogue on our comment boards. Unfortunately, a small but active minority of our users repeatedly abuse this privilege by posting comments that are inflammatory and disrespectful of others.

I applaud DDM's efforts to enhance moderation standards and encourage civility and respect for others. However, disabling the site's comments indefinitely while DDM looks for, "alternative community forums" seems a little extreme.

I'm interested to hear others' thoughts on this issue. Was this a good move on DDM's part? Do you moderate your comments and if so, how?

You can read KSL's article and view KSL TV's report at http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=12440686

When Freedoms Collide

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ensures us freedom of religion and freedom of speech. But what happens when the two collide? One Utah college student recently found out.

When California’s Proposition 8 was overturned last month and the state’s ban on gay marriage was ruled unconstitutional, U.S. citizens felt free to publicly express a litany of opinions. Cary Crall’s public opinion on the subject caused quite a stir when he submitted a letter to Brigham Young University’s (BYU) college newspaper, The Daily Universe.

Originally written as a letter to the editor, Crall's opinion morphed into an editorial piece which, after being printed, was yanked from the paper’s website for being “offensive.” Ironically, Crall’s opinion piece did not express his opinion on the outcome of the case or on the morality of gay marriage. Rather, he asked that those who oppose Prop 8 because their church leader asked them to, be candid: "The real reason is that a man who most of us believe is a prophet of God told us to support the amendment."

In MY opinion, Crall’s editorial was just that, an editorial – an opinion. None of us is required to either agree or disagree with him or to react to his viewpoint. That’s the great thing about freedom of speech. Unfortunately, the faculty advisor of The Daily Universe, Edward Carter, didn't see things that way. Carter pulled the editorial from the web saying that, “the content of the editorial was offensive."

Cary Crall’s column, “Defending Proposition 8—It’s time to admit the reasons,” is included in its entirety below. Take a look and decide for yourself. Or don't. 

Defending Proposition 8—It’s time to admit the reasons

By CARY CRALL

Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the recent United States District Court case that overturned Proposition 8, highlighted a disturbing inconsistency in the pro-Prop. 8 camp.

The arguments put forth so aggressively by the Protect Marriage coalition and by LDS church leaders at all levels of church organization during the campaign were noticeably absent from the proceedings of the trial. This discrepancy between the arguments in favor of Proposition 8 presented to voters and the arguments presented in court shows that at some point, proponents of Prop. 8 stopped believing in their purported rational and non-religious arguments for the amendment.

Claims that defeat of Prop. 8 would force religious organizations to recognize homosexual marriages and perform such marriages in their privately owned facilities, including LDS temples, were never mentioned in court. Similarly, the defense was unable to find a single expert witness willing to testify that state-recognized homosexual marriage would lead to forcing religious adoption agencies to allow homosexual parents to adopt children or that children would be required to learn about homosexual marriage in school.

Four of the proponents’ six expert witnesses who may have been planning on testifying to these points withdrew as witnesses on the first day of the trial. Why did they go and why did no one step up to replace them? Perhaps it is because they knew that their arguments would suffer much the same fate as those of David Blankenhorn and Kenneth Miller, the two expert witnesses who did agree to testify.

Judge Vaughn Walker, who heard the case, spent 11 pages of his 138-page decision meticulously tearing down every argument advanced by Blankenhorn before concluding that his testimony was “unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight.” Miller suffered similar censure after it was shown that he was unfamiliar with even basic sources on the subject in which he sought to testify as an expert.

The court was left with lopsided, persuasive testimony leading to the conclusion that Proposition 8 was not in the interest of the state and was discriminatory against gays and lesbians. Walker’s decision is a must-read for anyone who is yet to be convinced of this opinion. The question remains that if proponents of Prop. 8 were both unwilling and unable to support even one rational argument in favor of the amendment in court, why did they seek to present their arguments as rational during the campaign?

It is time for LDS supporters of Prop. 8 to be honest about their reasons for supporting the amendment. It’s not about adoption rights, or the first amendment or tradition. These arguments were not found worthy of the standards for finding facts set up by our judicial system. The real reason is that a man who most of us believe is a prophet of God told us to support the amendment. We must accept this explanation, along with all its consequences for good or ill on our own relationship with God and his children here on earth. Maybe then we will stop thoughtlessly spouting reasons that are offensive to gays and lesbians and indefensible to those not of our faith.

The Paradox of Social Media

ksl.com - Deseret Media Companies takes stand for civility in politics

ksl.com - Deseret Media Companies takes stand for civility in politics

Calling all Civil Politicians

Deseret Media Companies takes stand for civility in politics

Just when the buzz about the News – Salt Lake City's Deseret News, that is – seemed to be settling to a dull roar, Deseret Media Company (DMC) announced today that all of its subsidiaries, Deseret News, KSL TV, KSL Newsradio, Deseret Digital Media and Deseret Book, would commence taking a, "stand for civility in politics by creating a 'civility test' for political ads."

You may ask: "What's a civility test?" 

I will answer: "Since when does the DNews censor the civility of its advertisers?"

You may remind me: "It's only for political advertising!"

I revise: "Oh, so the civility standard for all other advertisers is negligible. How nice."

You: "No, the DMC wants politicians to be civil."

Me: "So the DMC will be patrolling for uncivil politicians! How nice."

You: "So, did ya hear the one about the 85 people who..."

So here's what you can expect from DMC, its subsidiaries, its advertisers, advertising politicians, sponsors, candidates, producers, editors, writers, reporters, photographers, videographers, researchers, layout designers, paginators, copy editors, fact checkers, print, etc., this election season:

∙ Civility in political advertising
∙ Civil political debate
∙ Quality of the political debate in general
∙ Focus on issues and facts
∙ Personal attacks
∙ Content that "informs voters and afford[s] respect and dignity to the political process."

Anti-climactic, but noteworthy, was the final statement that:

In the future, KSL will be delving into political ads to check them for accuracy in accordance with this call to civility.

Media Anxious to Cover Deseret News' Brave New World

The media, it seems, couldn't wait to get their words in edgewise and with lightening speed following announcements Tuesday, August 31, that Utah's oldest newspaper, the Deseret News, was ready to shake things up ... immediately.

Although 48 hours have passed since Deseret Digital Media (DDM) and Deseret News President and CEO Clark Gilbert announced the paper's "pioneering" initiatives (including the dismissal of 43 percent of the paper's staff) which will lead the news industry into a brave new world, the fallout continues as does the stunned reaction of the community.

Here are some of the more noteworthy reports I've run across:

1. Remaining at the top of my chart is crystal-ball reader and buster, Josh Loftin's City Weekly's post. His blog on the day of the layoffs, "D-News F-U," bluntly told it like it was - no sugar-coating. Many of us read it and wept, all the while nodding our heads in agreement.

Today's post, "Bomber on the Dashboard," blasted Gilbert for pre-recording a local radio interview, as well as debating Gilbert's claim that the layoffs will not impact their product.

Then, Gilbert and new "editor" Rick Hall had to go on KUER's RadioWest. Chicken sh*ts that they are, they pre-recorded, avoiding those pesky callers. The interview is kind of like an argument with a girlfriend at the end of a relationship, when "you forgot to flush" becomes a reason to provide a litany of every offense during the relationship. It sounds innocent, at first, a nice little ditty about how they are reinventing journalism. But Fabrizio, whose butter toffee voice never gets less sweet, is obviously irritated. He keeps using the word "spin" and going back to the 85 layoffs and the editorial direction. They keep redirecting the conversation. And so forth. As I've said before, the D-News executives are nothing if not consistent in their incompetence and arrogance.

2. Fox 13's phone interviews with Gilbert. Rumor has it that Gilbert actually hung up on Fox after he was asked if he'd be willing to take a pay cut to help keep staffers on.

In the following video report, Fox addressed the now-famous Twittastrophe, as well as the fact that no laid-off employees would speak to the media. When asked if staffers were warned not to speak with the media or their severance would be jeopardized, a flustered Gilbert admitted that he had not sat in on the terminations. Several other reporters have since asked the same question of Gilbert and although he denies it, it's fast becoming apparent that's exactly what happened.


3. The New York Times' takes the cake for the best article title: "Mormon Media Empire Goes More Digital." Briefly reviewing the DNew's execution of its "massive innovation," media experts Ken Doctor and Edward Pease offer up their opinions.

4. The Huffington Post's, "Deseret News Slashing Newsroom In Half." Mr. Morton succinctly says it all:

"Clearly they're feeling the pressure," said John Morton, president of Silver Spring, Md.-based media consulting firm Morton Research Inc. "They're trying to rethink what they're going to be in the future, merging the news operations with radio and television. But I suspect the benefits they get by adding radio and television reporters will be much less than what they're going to lose with the 85 layoffs."