I had to leave the family room just now, as Access Hollywood began its reporting of Oprah Winfrey’s BIG ANNOUNCEMENT regarding her decision to end her long-running television show.

I didn’t run out because I was overcome by emotion over losing Oprah. It was the absolutely idiotic fawning by Access Hollywood’s on-air “talent” that caused me to race to this blog. Someone at “Ground Zero” needs to tell the rest of the globe that Chicago will be okay without Oprah.

“Everyone in Chicago was in shock today” at the news that Oprah is ending her show, according to Access Hollywood. Now, I admit that I work and live in the northern suburbs of Chicago, so my home and office may not actually be considered Ground Zero to some of the entertainment reporters frantically covering Oprah’s life-changing announcement. But my personal observations indicate that, to the majority of my fellow Chicago-area residents, Oprah just isn’t really that significant.

Sure, we might wonder how much she will be throttling down the Oprah, Inc. money machine after a quarter century or so of work. But the truth is that I haven’t seen more than 10 minutes of any Oprah show in the past three to five years. I don’t have an Oprah jones.

Before you label me as one of the few around here who “don’t get it,” you need to know that while I was working, not a single coworker burst into tears or started shouting, “Oprah, Oprah…why???!!” As I drove home, not a single driver in any vehicle swerved across the median headed toward a light post or pond in a suicidal response to the reality that the Oprah Winfrey Show was coming to an end.

As I pulled into my neighborhood, not a single neighbor had started a candlelight vigil, with flowers, pictures of Oprah and cards with messages such as, “All of Chicago is in shock, Oprah, and we will NEVER be able to watch television again.”

Bye-bye, Oprah. Someone probably will let me know when your last show airs. I won’t be watching it; I have a life.

I’ve got several posts in mind, most of them based on learnings from last week’s Strategic Communications Summit 2009 in Chicago. But I’m finding that I don’t have the energy to stay up late at night to write these posts.

My advice to you young communicators: stop watching videos and bad television, and write while you have the energy. It will pay off, and you’ll sleep better at night, knowing that you didn’t leave something undone…again.

My first unofficial IABC 2009 World Conference event took place on Friday over buffalo wings, onion rings and drinks at the Fourth Street Bar & Grill at the Marriott. There, Mike Zimet and I thanked IABC IT staffer Isaac Chapman for the yeoman’s support he provided for the launch of SR LINK.

On Saturday morning, I joined a group of about a dozen IABC volunteers and three IABC staff members for a community service project. The beach cleaning went very well, although I couldn’t believe how many nails, screws and pieces of broken glass I scooped out of the sand around two firepits on the beach. People burn pallets and furniture there, and the nails and screws fall into the surrounding sand. You really don’t notice it when you would look at the beach (which is lovely).

Then we got back to the Marriott in time to freshen up a bit before embarking on a two-hour walking tour of San Francisco. I chose the Union Square / Chinatown tour, and was so impressed by the knowledge and enthusiasm shown by the two SF Chapter leaders, Molly Walker and Janet Bailey. One treat was to walk by the new IABC headquarters. I’m looking forward to sneaking over there for a quick visit sometime during the next couple of days.

The conference officially kicks off tomorrow, and I’ll do my best to capture some of the hightlights from the sessions I attend.

If you didn’t come this year, I’m telling you that you will be sorry!

Yesterday I wrote optimistically and enthusiastically about the social skills of some U.S. teens. Then I read a news article regarding Chinese youth, and realized that a comparison is in order.

The article, “Web-savvy & cynical: China’s youth since Tiananmen,” quotes and compares Chinese citizens who either lived through the June 4, 1989 military crackdown against demonstrators in Beijing, or who were born after it. The difference in political knowledge and concern is striking.

Here is one portion of the article:

Wu Xu, 39, was a Tiananmen participant. His generation was plagued by insecurity, he says, and hoped that China could “catch up” to the West politically and economically.

“This generation is totally different,” says Wu, author of a recent book about Chinese cybernationalism. “There is no kind of feeling of inferiority. … They have had the advantage of the last thirty years of China’s economic performance.”

Wu contends that China’s youth know more than they let on, and while they tend to be fiercely proud of their country they are also highly critical of their government. He calls them “a double-edged sword with no handle,” because their opinions cut in many directions and are not guided by any single ideology or organization.

Although young people in the United States also have opinions that go in many directions and are not guided by any single ideology or organization, they have something that Chinese people don’t: the freedom to speak their minds and to hear dissenting views.

The last presidential election is a case in point. Young people in large numbers supported the ideas of Barack Obama, and used social media tools and techniques to energize that campaign. But Obama’s opinions and promises weren’t unopposed, and voters were able to sift through messages from every candidate (Republican, Democrat and several others).

Further, as a Christian, I appreciate having the freedom to speak truth as I have learned it, in a country where people with other views also have the right to state their views. The mention of a double-edged sword in the article above reminded me of the verse in the bible that states,

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. — Hebrews 4:12 (New International Version)

I truly believe that the situation in China cannot be sustained, and someday, that nation will face truths that have been long suppressed.

Just weeks before the IABC 2009 World Conference, I received an email regarding cancellation of a pre-conference community project for which I was registered. That community project was to partner with the Fillmore/Western Addition Mobilization of Adolescent Growth In our Communities (Mo’ MAGIC), a collaborative of more than 50 programs and organizations helping under-served youth in San Francisco.

I was looking forward to spending the Saturday morning before the World Conference reading to kids. The event summary stated that “Studies also show that being read to or reading to others can help decrease summer learning loss.” What a great program, I thought. It fit well into my desire to serve the community using the skills and experience I’ve gained as a communicator.

Evidently, I was one of a very limited group of people, because the project was canceled due to low registrations. I’d better make it clear that I agree with IABC conference organizers who have to be prudent when planning these projects. My disappointment is with the situation, not the decision to cancel the event.

Was it budget cutbacks that prevent conference attendees from coming a day sooner? I hope that was the case, rather than a lack of interest in reading to kids.

Anyway, I’ll donate to the book drive in support of Mo’MAGIC, and have signed up to participate in the beach cleanup that day instead. Maybe I’ll pick up a few discarded bottled water containers. While that will be good karma in light of my struggle to stop using bottled water, I’m wondering if any kids in the San Francisco area are feeling discarded themselves. I hope not.

Consider me the proud parent of a spankin’ new website devoted to Social Responsibility (SR) communications. Actually, I’m one of several “parents” of the SR LINK, a website created by volunteers of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC).

The SR LINK website offers resources and online conversations to advance the knowledge and skills of communicators within the field of SR. Sponsored by IABC, this site is meant to “LINK” us as we:

• Learn about SR and the communicator’s role in shaping organizations’ SR strategies, policies, practices, and communications
• Inform community members regarding SR resources we or others have developed or found helpful: tools, best practices, lessons learned, and case studies
• Network with other communicators through online conversations

And perhaps best of all,

• Know we all are making a difference – by advancing the role of communicators in this important field and in bringing best practices to the organizations with which we work.

That final bullet point is perhaps the most important to me. When Mike Zimet asked whether I would be interested in contributing to this project, I didn’t hesitate to sign on. SR isn’t my primary area of expertise; I have an interest in SR because the end result is that people around the world benefit.

I will continue to do anything I can to help SR programs and the people who devote so much time, energy and money to seeing those programs succeed.

Now I’m asking you to help. Visit the SR LINK and see whether you find ways to contribute a comment, an article, a case study, or something else. The website will remain viable and beneficial only if others join. And when I say “join,” the investment is minimal. We don’t charge money, we don’t require you to register, and we certainly don’t limit participation to any group.

Let me know what you think. We are very excited about the launch of the site, and we know that, just as with a newborn baby, the labor at the front end is only the beginning of the work ahead!

Journalists, bloggers and some corporate legal departments are concerned about a recent ruling by a federal appeals court that may lead to changes in libel law.

As reported by Boston Globe reporter Jonathan Saltzman, the Feb 13 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston would allow a former salesman at Staples to sue the company for libel. The former salesman, Alan S. Noonan, believes that he was libeled by an email sent by a Staples vice president to about 1,500 employees stating that the salesman had been fired for violations of company procedures regarding expenses reimbursements.

According to the Boston Globe reporter:

Although the decision did not involve a news outlet, it has alarmed journalists, bloggers, and media law specialists, who worry that it could discourage news organizations from pursuing true stories that might cast subjects in a bad light.

When I was a journalism major at Eastern Illinois University, I paid attention during Communications Law class. I knew that I might have to walk a delicate legal line some day, and wanted to understand how far I could go in telling the “truth” without fear of being successfully sued for libel.

This current case has an interesting twist because the judges drew upon a relatively obscure 1902 state law when reaching their decision to allow the libel suit to proceed. That 1902 state law says truth is a defense against libel unless the plaintiff can show “actual malice” by the person publishing the statement. But the definition of “actual malice” is not the same as the one taught in j-schools.

I remember learning in Comm. Law that before a public figure can overcome a journalist’s First Amendment right to free speech in a libel case, “actual malice” has to be proven. That would mean that the journalist acted in reckless disregard for the truth, or knew a published statement was false.

But the Staples suit benefits from Massachusetts law that defines “actual malice” as “malevolent intent or ill will.” According to the Boston Globe story:

Noonan might be able to persuade a jury that the company demonstrated ill will; the Staples vice president who sent the email had never referred to a fired employee by name in a mass email before, and jurors might conclude he “singled out Noonan in order to humiliate him,” the court wrote.

So although people like the appellate lawyer for the fired Staples employee point out that the ruling applies only to lawsuits by private figures against private defendants—and not journalists—journalists are taking note. The Boston Globe reports that 51 news organizations have filed a friend-of-the-court brief saying that the decision, if allowed to stand, “will create a precedent that hinders the media’s ability to rely on truthful publication to avoid defamation liability.”

At EIU’s daily student newspaper, the Daily Eastern News, our motto was, “Tell the Truth, and Don’t Be Afraid.” I hope that this ruling does not impact journalism students in the future, who might be told in Communication Law to “Tell the Truth, But Not If You’re Going to Get Sued.”

My thanks to Evan Hill and the EIU Journalism list-serv for passing on this news.

As if it hasn’t been painfully obvious, I’ve stopped blogging. Don’t bother stopping by, unless you want to reread earlier posts.

I’ve been busy with some professional projects and many personal commitments—none of which I’m ready to discuss in a blog post.

When I have something of general interest to share, I’ll crank up the blog again.

Melcrum’s Strategic Communication Management Summit 2008 in Chicago was exceptional. I’ve already posted a podcast interview of communication expert Roger D’Aprix that was recorded on the first day of the summit, and I’ll be summarizing some of the information I gathered during the three-day event in Chicago.

The summit was held at the Ritz-Carlton in Chicago, about one block from my high school. That gave me additional photo opportunities and ideas for blog posts.

I particularly want to compliment the Melcrum staff, led by Vicky Burch, Annie Waite and Rick Spratley. They went above the call to be welcoming, helpful and instrumental in encouraging networking among the participants and speakers.

More to come, as I get to it.

I just left a comment on David Murray’s blog, “Writing Boots,” where I stated that the company where I work hasn’t so much embraced social media, as it has awkwardly patted its head.

I suspect that my employer has a lot of company. Social media tools like Twitter, podcasting, videos and Facebook are like the youngsters who run around the family party, under the nervous gaze of Uncle Traditional Comms and Aunt Haitu Comms. Traditional and Haitu try to engage in “normal” conversation while these young whipper-snappers dart past them, climb under the tables and chairs, and start dancing right in the middle of a serious discussion.

“Why, oh why can’t somebody tame them?” ask Haitu asks Traditional. “Yes, this certainly isn’t the way WE were at their age,” Traditional mutters.

Just then, one of their cousins comes over, and reintroduces a young niece, Everly Startup, a vivacious and successful consultant and entrepreneur. Everly begins to speak, but is interrupted by a loud shriek of excitement coming from one of the youngsters, who had just tasted the frosting on the guest of honor’s cake.

“You just never know what they’re going to do,” Everly states, then motions for the youngster, who is still licking the frosting from his index finger, to come stand next to her. As Traditional and Haitu move their gaze from Everly, to their cousin, to the youngster next to them who begins to vibrate without moving his feet, the next step doesn’t seem clear.

So Traditional does what old-timers have always done. With a half-smile, half-grimace, he ruffles the hair of the vibrating child below him, while trying desperately to keep up the pretense that he actually paid attention when the child’s name was first announced.

“So this is little…Podcast…no, little Twit…(Haitu’s shoots him a hard look)…no, little YouTube,” Traditional blurts out. When Everly smiles and nods, Traditional doesn’t know what to do next. With an awkward pat on YouTube’s noggin, Traditional grabs Haitu by the elbow and begins to shuffle away while saying, “You’ll just have to tell us again sometime what YouTube is doing these days. He just seems to be getting bigger and bigger, every time we see him.”