Tag Archives: cnn

New Grads, Perk Up Your ears

Posted on by
Reply

????????????????A month after earning a bachelor’s degree in English, I launched my career at the Indiana Chamber. It seems like yesterday. But … it wasn’t. I celebrated my 15-year anniversary last week.

An interesting article on CNN.com reveals the top employers for new graduates based on a survey of business students at colleges around the world.

Among the coveted employers:

The Coca-Cola Company
Is there a more recognizable, more iconic American brand than Coca-Cola? That’s what draws young people to work for the company – the chance to work on products that they’ve been around, enjoyed and seen millions of advertisements for their whole lives.

L’Oreal
It’s no wonder that working for one of the world’s biggest beauty brands is attractive to young workers. With Kiehls, Maybelline, Urban Decay and Clarisonic under its umbrella, employees can have many different jobs with various brands while still staying within the company.

Plus, there are some great benefits, like flexible work options, paternity leave, adoption assistance and 13 weeks of paid maternity leave, among others. And yes, employees receive discounts on products.

Nestle
Sure, getting to work for a company responsible for some of the most famous chocolate brands sounds delicious. Even more appealing for young workers is the company’s policy of promoting people from within. In fact, 80% of positions within Nestle are filled by current employees, according to the company.

Stay Classy, Cable News: Turn Elsewhere If You Want To Be Informed

Posted on by
Reply

I shouldn’t have been surprised when I started squirming in my seat during the movie Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues. It wasn’t just for the reasons I was expecting – not the over-acting of Will Ferrell or the ridiculous raunchy lines coming out of Paul Rudd’s mouth.

Unfortunately, it was the characters’ realization that their news show – which was on at 2 a.m. on a new cable network back in the 1970s – would get higher ratings if they just glossed over all the important, yet boring news stories, and told everyone what they wanted to hear. Each episode ended with Ferrell’s character Ron Burgundy saying “Don’t just have a great night, have an American night.”

Aye, yai, yai.

Then there was the scene when Burgundy decided to be the first show to broadcast a local car chase live, in an effort to take away attention from an important and much more relevant interview on a competing channel. That is broadcast journalism at its most sensational and lowest point.

You guessed it – their plan worked. The show became the most popular on the network, and changed the face of America’s broadcast news landscape. Yes, I know, it’s a movie. But, if it wasn’t a great personification of how actual cable “news” shows impact American opinion, I don’t know a better way to explain it.

Maybe a 2012 survey from Farleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey will help. “What you know depends on what you watch: Current events knowledge across popular news sources” was a follow-up survey from the university’s 2011 PublicMind™ poll and showed that National Public Radio (NPR), Sunday morning political talk shows and even The Daily Show with Jon Stewart were more informative news sources than partisan outlets, such as Fox News, CNN and MSNBC.

In fact, out of 1,185 people surveyed nationwide, those who identified as having watched only one of those political news sources was less likely to correctly answer a series of national and international current events questions than someone who identified as having watched no news at all.

The average person could answer 1.8 out of four questions correctly on international news, and 1.6 out of five questions on domestic matters.

The results showed that people who didn’t watch any news at all could, on average, correctly answer 1.22 of the questions about domestic politics, either by guessing or from their existing knowledge.

Here’s the real kicker – someone who only watched Fox News (on average) could only answer 1.04 national questions correctly. NPR consumers got 1.51 questions correct and Daily Show viewers got 1.42 questions correct. The findings were similar for international questions.

Additionally, the survey noted the impact of the “ideologically-based” sources on the audience that consumed the information. Liberals, for example, did better on the questions when gleaning information from MSNBC; same with conservatives with Fox News. But, moderates and liberals who watch Fox News were worse at answering the questions.

Dan Cassino, political scientist and poll analyst, was quoted in the survey about the impact of the partisan sources on news knowledge.

“Ideological news sources, like Fox and MSNBC, are really just talking to one audience. This is solid evidence that if you’re not in that audience, you’re not going to get anything out of watching them,” he said in the survey.

Read the full survey results.

Reporting Truth is More Important Than Speed

Posted on by
Reply

When you work as a reporter at a small community newspaper, you learn early on that making a mistake – grammatical, factual or otherwise – will typically earn you a public flogging by way of scathing letter to the editor. So, you double- and triple-check your facts before printing.

But, something has happened in this 24/7 news cycle and Twitter-as-news cycle. Accuracy and truth in reporting has become less important than being the first to break a story.

I was shocked to observe it happening during the immediate aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. For example: The name of the shooter most news outlets had been using all day was the wrong name (it was the shooter’s brother). The first victim – the shooter’s mother – wasn’t, in fact, a teacher at that school. At one point there was a second shooter, and then there wasn’t.

Bad information. Just plain wrong. But it was out there and people were repeating it. Re-tweeting it.

It seems history is repeating itself with the Boston Marathon attack.

Shortly after the blasts, one news outlet said 17 people were killed. We all know that the actual number is three. Another outlet reported that a Saudi national was in custody and being guarded at a local hospital as a suspect. It turns out the innocent man was held down by frantic people in the crowd who thought he’d had something to do with it. He was never in police custody as a suspect; just recovering at a local hospital, like so many others.

Then, two days after the bombings, news outlets and social media erupted that a suspect had been arrested. An hour later: No arrests. It wasn’t until the Boston Police Department and FBI confirmed there had been no arrest made in the attack that the claims died down.

It dawned on me during the early moments of the Boston Marathon attack that as news consumers, we’re all part of the problem. We all want the information as quickly as possible. We re-tweet and share on Facebook the moment things are announced, whether or not stories contain a credible source. An “unnamed” or “unofficial” source does not count as credible, people.

Like so many Americans, Sandy Hook will always be on my heart. As a journalist, my mind will also linger on the shooter’s brother, who not only lost his family and has to live with the pain his brother caused, but whose name was vilified for the better part of a day, despite his innocence.

In the future, do your own fact-checking and wait for a named source. Contact the news outlet to let them know you value accuracy over rapidity.

It’s time to demand better.

There’s Only So Much (Political Advertising) a Person Can Take

Posted on by
Reply

Who doesn’t enjoy a good campaign commercial? With politicians lambasting their opponents, blaming them for the recession, mortgage failure, tax crisis, Midwest drought and McDonald’s taking away the McRib sandwich (okay, those last two are a bit facetious – obviously no one controls the weather), what’s not to love?

And no doubt you’re already saturated with political campaigns. “How can this be?,” you proclaim. “It’s only August!”

You are not wrong in your exasperation. The sheer number of television campaign advertisements shown so far this year is shocking (with three months to go before the election, even) and the amount of money spent by candidates and Super PACs is astounding.

Think you’ve had enough? Be glad you don’t live in Ohio. Or Florida. Or North Carolina. The money spent on the presidential election alone in this cycle has been $37.2 million in Ohio on TV ads; $36.3 million in Florida; and $20.4 million in North Carolina.

In fact, across nine “battleground” states (the three listed, along with Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Virginia, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire), the presidential campaigns and Super PACs have spent $174 million on television spots alone. And that amount was just for nine states through the beginning of July.

Let me put that into perspective: According to ESPN, in 2012 the average cost for a 30-second television ad during the Super Bowl was $3.5 million. That $174 million spent so far on presidential advertisements in nine states equals about 50 Super Bowl commercials. (Unfortunately, politicians don’t include the Budweiser Clydesdales or barking dogs dressed as "Star Wars" characters in their ads.)

It’s not just which states you are in, but also the networks you watch. For instance, if you are a regular Fox News viewer, chances are you’ve seen a number of the 479,055 advertisements that have aired on the network thus far. CNN is next with 191,027 campaign ads and another news network, MSNBC, aired 75,207, according to NCC Media.

You can’t really avoid it by changing the channel, either. ESPN, TNT, USA, Lifetime, HGTV, and the Weather Channel, to name a few, top the list of number of ads aired this election cycle. Even Food Network viewers can’t escape the barrage (33,118 ads so far interspersed between Paula Deen and Bobby Flay).

It’s safe to say that as the election draws closer, we will see even more of these ads. But, are they effective? Americans that are planning to vote most likely have decided which candidate they will support – but there are always individuals that can be wooed at the last minute.

One thing is for sure, however: The broadcast television industry must really love election time.

How to Keep Your Top Employees

Posted on by
Reply

So you have some employees you’re fond of. That’s great. But, you’re concerned they may head for greener pastures once the economy improves and their options expand. Not so good. This CNN/Fortune article offers some thoughts on how to make sure your affinity for your top staffers is not unrequited:

The CEB (Corporate Executive Board) survey, which asked nearly 20,000 high-potential employees what drove them, found that feeling connected to corporate strategy was tops on their list. But many managers turned inward when the economy sank, giving fewer employees the chance to influence the company’s direction.

Another way to get your stars involved is to turn them into headhunters. Many companies already do so through employee-referral programs, but they don’t realize that there is an upside beyond bringing in new talent. Dave Ulrich, human resources consultant and University of Michigan professor, says such programs can actually boost loyalty for those doing the recruiting. "It sounds tautological," he says, "but when people behave as if they’re committed, they become more committed."

Even if money isn’t the best motivator, it still talks. To make a smaller bonus pool go further, fine-tune your timing. Rewards handed out at tough times can have a major impact. It’s also smart to rethink your selection process. More companies are paying bonuses to those with hard-to-replace skills instead of just top performers, says Hay Group comp expert Tom McMullen.

Senate Votes to Open Health Care Debate

Posted on by
Reply

On Saturday, a 60-39 vote opened the debate on the 2,074-page health care bill in the U.S. Senate. The debate on the amending proposal is slated to last for several (if not more) weeks. CNN reports:

"We do not believe completely restructuring one-sixth of our economy is a good idea at any time," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, told CNN. "It is a particularly bad idea when we’re looking at double-digit unemployment."

McConnell and other Republicans call for an incremental approach that they say would reduce the costs of health care without creating new bureaucracy and taxes.

"We think we ought to go step-by-step to improve the system," McConnell said. "The American people are not complaining about the quality of health care. They’re complaining about the cost of health care."

Democrats respond that the Republicans are ignoring millions of Americans who can’t get health insurance.

Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Democrat who was a Republican for most of his long career until changing parties this year, told "Fox News Sunday": "The one option which is not present in my judgment is the option of doing nothing."

"We have the opposition refusing to admit that there’s any problem with health care, refusing to admit that there’s any problem with global warming, refusing to take a stand on the economic crisis," Specter complained about his former party.

The 60-39 Senate vote Saturday to open debate revealed the partisan divide on the issue, and the fragility of the Democratic support. Democrats needed their entire caucus, including two independents, to muster the 60 votes required in the 100-member chamber to overcome a Republican filibuster.

Now several conservative and moderate Democrats say they won’t support a final bill that includes a public insurance option. Republicans unanimously oppose the public option, which means it cannot survive in the chamber without unanimous Democratic support.

"I don’t think anybody feels this bill will pass" in its current form, Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut told NBC’s "Meet the Press." Lieberman voted to start debate on the bill, but reiterated Sunday he would join a Republican filibuster if the public option remains in the proposal when it comes time to end the debate.

See the Indiana Chamber’s view below:

Brownsburg, St. John, Others Honored by CNNMoney

Posted on by
Reply

In CNNMoney.com’s 2009 list of Best Places to Live for small(ish) towns, the top 50 featured two Hoosier burgs — Brownsburg (33rd) and St. John (48th).

Also noteworthy, in a ranking of the Most Affordable Cities (using the criteria, "Residents who buy real estate in these towns from the Best Places database see their incomes go the furthest"), Indiana placed five cities/towns in the top 25. They are:

2. New Haven – $89,152 (median home price in 2008)
7. Brownsburg – $131,000
10. Noblesville – $150,000
24. Plainfield – $126,000
25. Merrillville – $122,309

Check out the list here.

Hat tip to Inside INdiana Business.

Stimulus: Anything Here for Small Businesses?

Posted on by
Reply

The soon-to-pass stimulus bill has, as expected, created a litany of policy debates among supporters and detractors. And while many free-marketers have criticized the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, one wonders if American businesses should seriously expect much benefit from it. CNN.com posted an article about the impact on small businesses today that is worth mentioning:

The bill authorizes the Small Business Administration to temporarily eliminate or reduce fees for participation in its flagship loan-guarantee programs, which insure banks against default by small business borrowers. The stimulus bill also increases to 90% the percentage of qualifying loans that the SBA can guarantee.

For companies in need of quick relief, the bill offers a "small business stabilization financing," which gives them money to pay off existing loans. Under the program, the SBA can issue or back loans of up to $35,000; businesses can then use the money to make up to six months of payments on previous loans. Interest on stabilization loans will be fully subsidized, and the loans won’t have any payments due for the first year. Borrowers must repay them within five years.

The SBA has a limited window of time and cash to fund these emergency measures. Congress allocated $630 million to fund loan subsidies and modifications, and authorized them to continue through September 2010. If the cash starts to run out, borrowers will have priority over lenders – and small banks will have priority over larger ones – for receiving fee discounts and waivers.

Other measures designed to help small business include (see the article for details):

  • Unfreezing the loan market
  • Loss accounting
  • Equipment expensing
  • Hiring incentives
  • Capital gains tax breaks for those who invest in small businesses

Your thoughts? Will this actually help small businesses? Or is it just an example of bureaucracy being bureaucracy?

Ohio Still Entangled in Lawsuits from Election — the 2004 Election

Posted on by
Reply

The Cincinnati Enquirer published an article last week claiming Ohio taxpayers are still "on the hook" for legal fees stemming from lawsuits against the state in the 2004 election. Yikes. It states there were 23 lawsuits against the former Secretary of State, with over $1 million still needed to settle seven of the suits.

All but one of the settled cases involved election law. That one, settled for $73,139, involved a business-records suit in which a Brown County truck driver sued because his Social Security number was posted on a state Web site.

Last week, the Ohio Controlling Board OK’d payment of the latest judgment, awarding five TV networks and the Associated Press $325,521 in attorneys’ fees and expenses from a 2004 case. The lawsuit challenged (former Sec. of State Ken) Blackwell’s order to block ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, Fox News and the AP from conducting exit polling within 100 feet of the polls on Election Day 2004.

Brunner, a Democrat, fired some of the outside counsel hired to defend those cases shortly after she took office in 2007. But 13 of the cases remain active in state and federal courts, including a lawsuit that challenged Bush’s narrow re-election.

Pretty brutal considering times are tough and taxpayers need all the breaks they can get. No word yet if anyone plans to sue the Bengals for having to endure their games this season.

Hat tip to our very own Glenn Harkness for the info.

IMPORTANT REMINDER: Indiana Chamber to Bring Real Time Election Night Coverage on Our New Site

Posted on by
Reply

Sure, you can listen to your favorite talking heads at CNN, MSNBC or Fox News rattle off their jargon du jour.

But for the first time, the Indiana Chamber’s web site will be Election Night Central, updating you on the status of the many state races the other guys often miss. Furthermore, we’ll be partnering with Hoosier Access and will have streaming analysis every half hour featuring our political affairs director Michael Davis and Hoosier Access’ own Josh Gillespie waxing analytical about what they’re seeing.

So the option is yours — you can watch Anderson Cooper & Company play with their crazy hand-held CGI pie charts (that’s just not natural), or you can kick it Hoosier style with the likes of us. (Ok, actually, you can do both since they’re two different mediums, but I’m on a roll.)

Just visit www.indianachamber.com on election night and watch the results roll in. 

Note: This blog will also be used for running analysis in tandem with the main site, so don’t forget about us — or the communications team will whine like neglected puppies. (We think we’re people.)