Not long ago, the website deadspin.com was just a place for sports geeks, by the thousands, to read snarky commentary or rip on the “old guys” in sports media. Today, it’s the site that broke a bona fide investigative report that will permeate sports and become a major national story.

Late this afternoon, this story broke about Notre Dame star linebacker Mantei Te’o, whose story of overcoming adversity made him as close to a household name as there has been in college sports in many years. Deadspin reports, in classic old media investigative fashion using new media tools, that the story of Te’o's girlfriend’s death, extensively reported by sports journalism stalwarts like Sports Illustrated, ESPN and a legion of Notre Dame beat reporters, was a hoax.

The PR takeaways on this will become more clear in the coming hours and days. But here are two right away:

1) Notre Dame, having been contacted by Deadspin for comment, knew what was coming. The University issued a statement saying that Te’o was actually the victim of the hoax (although without detail). That is a complicated message to deliver in a statement – as well as hard to believe – and not the way that a crisis like this should typically be addressed, when facts and reassurance are paramount.

2) For PR professionals, don’t believe this “journalism is dead” garbage. Journalism, at times, feels like it can appear just about everywhere. Take an investigation by a blogger as seriously as you would a “big brand” news organization. This story proves that when the fundamentals are followed and an audience is in place, news can be made by the underdogs, and very quickly.

Analyzing PR strategies has long been something of a parlor game inside newsrooms. Reporters and editors often do have keen insight into what’s working and what isn’t. But, when their bosses have to enter an adversity communications management situation, they often struggle.

The latest evidence of this is seen now with the Journal News in suburban Westchester County, New York – the newspaper that ignited a national controversy by publishing the names of registered gun owners in its circulation area. While the information was previously public, controversy reigns about its newsworthiness of it, along with privacy concerns and charges of gun demonization, putting the paper at the top of the list of other news outlets politicians, interest groups and ill-intentioned citizens.

In recent days, we have seen reports that journalists have received suspicious packages containing white power and the newspaper itself, along with the homes of both its publisher and its editor, are being protected with armed security. Personal information has been posted online about where journalists live, some have reportedly received threats and bloggers have reportedly encouraged readers to steal journalists’ credit card information.

From a PR perspective, the paper is reiterating its message, which stands by its story. The reporter who wrote the story that accompanied the map told the New York Times, “The people have as much of a right to know who owns guns in their communities as gun owners have to own weapons.” But, I haven’t found anything else that the paper is doing, like convening discussion about the issues or trying to take control of the dialogue in the community it serves.

There is more to PR than media relations and media outlets need to understand this. I once helped a daily newspaper convene twice-monthly community roundtables, for two years after a divisive strike. That type of tactic would help here, especially with the newspaper business in such peril. Newspapers can’t afford to be passive during a time when business preservation is paramount.

Other forms of media often have trouble when the PR is their own. Years ago, a TV station that grabbed ratings by skewering companies that wouldn’t go on camera with them after ambushes had a news reporter accused of using homophobic and racist slurs to a man on a street while out on a story, leading to a criminal charge. When asked by a print reporter about the incident, the station’s general manager ironically responded, “We have no comment, and it’s a company policy not to comment until the investigation is complete.”

Like any other business, the media business can have PR needs. Top management, like that in any other industry, should seek counsel or, at the very least, stop by the newsroom for advice.

For 36 years, Metro Detroiters woke up to Joe Donovan’s voice giving them the news headlines, traffic, weather and some clever and often hysterical ad-libs. First with Don Patrick and for the past 20+ years with co-anchor Roberta Jasina, Joe combined his distinct baritone, uncanny way with words, newsman’s curiosity and unwavering professionalism to cement WWJ’s place in the morning ratings and the go-to place on the dial when the snow falls or the big story breaks.

On Friday, at the end of “morning drive time,” Joe very quickly said goodbye to the audience and apparently headed into retirement. On the air in Detroit since 1970 (radio fans will love seeing Joe in this portion of a documentary on CKLW, where he was part of “20/20 News”), he deserved attention on TV for leaving the air. I had the privilege of talking about him in this WDIV-TV story, as I worked at WWJ with Joe.

As a professional, I’ll always appreciate the confidence Joe showed in me early in my career. Personally, I’ll miss bumping into him when visiting the newsroom and talking college football (his knowledge of the sport runs deep, as much of the audience remembers from his pre-Internet days. Fall Saturdays on WWJ became “The Joe Show” with his scoreboard updates). But most of all, I’ll miss hearing him when my clock radio alarm goes off and throughout my drive to wherever I’m starting my day.

As listeners, we’re selfish. We want the professionals who wake up at 2am for decades to serve us and work forever. But the radio industry, like most corporate entities, doesn’t often think long-term. Now we’re faced with a retiring generation and so few prepared to step forward. For more than 20 years, radio news has not developed a “farm system.” Very few commercial stations around the country have been committed to news. The only all-news stations are in the largest markets. Because of budget constraints, those stations haven’t been able to develop “benches” like they used to.

WWJ enjoys a terrific brand and often leads the market in ad revenue. The format is the star, so that is likely to continue, even without Joe Donovan. But with that generation of broadcasters headed into retirement, the valuable medium of radio news faces a challenge – who will anchor the news when they’re gone?

Today, CNN hired a new chief. Jeff Zucker, former mastermind of NBC’s most recent success with Today and NBC Nightly news (before a failed tenure heading NBC Entertainment), accepted the job and will drive the mandate for change.

Yes, CNN faces a mountain of competition from emerging news sources online and the polarizing Fox News and MSNBC on TV. But the truth is, that competition is nothing new. CNN really peaked in 1991, when it put itself on the mainstream map with its live coverage from Iraq of the first Gulf War. I worked in the local TV news business in the 1990s and remember when stations would promote themselves as a CNN affiliate, even though its video feed service was available to any station in every market. That is an example of the “gold standard for TV news” brand cache CNN enjoyed for a few years.

But, just three years into its prime, CNN became OJTV, when it covered the O.J. Simpson trial wall-to-wall, even late into the day as the trial was held on the West Coast, essentially abandoning its all-news format. Following OJTV, in its efforts to rebuild, two things happened to set it back. First, Fox News began to pounce by creating a compelling brand and positioning itself as the “attitude” news channel (before preaching political doctrine). Then, Time-Warner corporate ownership downsized the newsgathering operation, weakening CNN’s ability to truly be a national and global news entity. CNN has never recovered.

The New York Times encapsulated Zucker’s introduction with this quote from him today, “I think we can remain true to the journalistic values that have always been the hallmark of CNN and at the same time we can continue to broaden the definition of what news is.”

CNN has 24 hours to fill. But let’s hope, for an hour each day in Prime Time, we can see a broadcast that fits the definition of news that won’t take any broadening. CNN has an opportunity to do a “straight newscast” in the midst of a universe of bias and commentary.

The concept of a 6:30 Eastern Time network newscast was born in the 1950s when, by 6:30pm weekdays, news viewers were home, finished with dinner, and in front of a TV to see what they missed in the news during the day. Now, we need a network newscast to fit the realities of 2013 and beyond. It needs to start no earlier than 8pm Eastern. It needs to assume we saw headlines on-line during the day, but missed the visual storytelling that only TV, especially in the HD age, can really communicate. It needs to provide reporting, beyond the headlines, that gives us more, without screaming partisan talking heads. It needs to respect that just-add-water controversies in national politics and stranger-than-fiction crimes are interesting to many, but there is other news important to us that’s tougher and more expensive to cover and we want that too. It should break stories that the audience will want to talk about online, sharing on social media. It should be anchored by someone credible, who cares about connecting with an audience more than having a pulpit. It should do what the “old 3″ networks do at 6:30, but do it better, for a wider audience and for longer.

For so many years, CNN has tried to beat the other guys with talk and opinion in Prime Time. It hasn’t worked. It’s time to fill the void in the marketplace with a newscast – a retro product with true appeal.

Every so often, there’s a PR decision by an organization that, despite being made by professionals who otherwise know what they’re doing, that, on the surface, just doesn’t make any sense.

That’s how the Twitter policy by the University of Washington, made public today, strikes. The University has instructed journalists to limit the number of live tweets they send while covering UW events.

We have reached an era where live tweeting is essentially live news coverage. While, from the PR vantage point, it can be frustrating because journalists blend instant commentary (and often snark) with real-time reporting, we must respect Twitter posts as a bona fide news platform because that is how the our audiences – the media and the public – audience see it.

There dos not appear to be a UW policy that otherwise restricts news coverage. It would be hard to believe that the University would try to dictate how news is reported in traditional platforms. It’s tough to imagine a restriction on how many newspaper stories a reporter could write or TV packages a station could put together.

Years ago, when I was reporting for radio, I often covered the Detroit Tigers. Because a competing station paid for and maintained play-by-play rights, I was restricted from calling live action on the field during a game. But, I could still report live from the ballpark as often as the station wanted me to, providing facts and the game story to the audience. That restriction made reasonable sense. But restricting tweets to an arbitrary number does not, especially in the age of the multi-screen experience with so many fans watching TV while following social media at the same time.

Here, we are actually doing the opposite with our clients. We handle PR for many events and are have taken steps, including advising our clients to provide workspace and WI-FI access when possible, recognizing that journalists will live tweet the events. While we maintain the right to restricted credential access, once a credential is granted, event coverage is fair game, regardless of platform.

It’s impossible to imagine anyone choosing not to attend an event, particularly a major sports event, to stay home and read live tweets instead. In fact, we have found that live tweeting is good for brand engagement and awareness. In short, it’s good PR.

While many are digesting the last of their Halloween candy and Thanksgiving is gradually entering onto individual radar screens, one need not travel far up or down the dial to tunes of a counterintuitive nature for this time of year: Christmas music.

Like it or love it, radio stations are spreading the yuletide spirit across the country – in some cases, earlier and earlier. Bill Shea of Crain’s Detroit Business explored the how’s and why’s in his story this week featuring Tanner Friedman’s perspectives. You can read the entire piece here.

In Metro Detroit, adult contemporary station WNIC continues to lead the annual Kris Kringle-charge as they took to the airwaves on November 9^th to inject visions of sugar plumbs into their listener’s heads. By comparison, Chicago’s WLIT went all-holiday on Halloween, Seattle’s KYXE on October 10! Like ‘NIC, both stations are soft rock, a format historically most conducive to the multi-week (or month) switch.

As the Crain’s story described, holiday music is big business for radio. For example, over the past 3 years, WNIC has ranked #1 ever year for both the December and Holiday rating books, pulling listeners from virtually every other radio station in town. After all, in the segmented world of radio, holiday music represents the only format that can potentially appeal to everyone at some point. As such, stations like WNIC often raise spot rates during this period by as much as 20%.

As commercial radio continues to look for more ways to stand out from its many competitors, don’t be surprised to see more stations unveiling temporary ‘Santa-song switches’ – gift wrapped especially for both increased listening and commercial ad dollars.

The Tanner Friedman blog is wonderful outlet for Matt and I to express our opinions and we are forever grateful to anyone that takes the time to read and, quite often, share their thoughts. This forum is also ideal for showcasing timely stories by top journalists working in our industry, including a new piece by Mae Anderson of the Associated Press on celebrity endorsers and Nike becoming the first company to drop Lance Armstrong in the wake of his doping controversy.

After all, why drop Armstrong while standing behind others, including Tiger Woods, for various transgressions? The answer, posits Anderson who spoke with numerous marketers for her piece, would seem to be the fact that the cyclist’s alleged actions related directly to his sport and performance therein, perhaps over a period of time as long as two decades.

In all fairness to Nike, they have dropped athletes in the past for behavior or remarks that must have constituted contractual morals clauses. Michael Vick is perhaps the most prominent in this group although he was resigned by Nike last year. For other companies, transition after transgression has not always gone as smoothly. Pittsburgh Steelers running back Rashard Mendenhall is currently suing apparel and underwear company Hanesbrands after he was ‘cut’ for making controversial comments regarding the death of Osama Bin Laden and 911. Mendenhall is suing for $1 million and breach of contract/wrongful termination.

As for Nike and Armstrong, another marketer, Atlanta-based consultant Laura Reis puts it very well in the AP piece: “Nike is about ‘just doing it’ and that doesn’t mean drugs. It means hard work and ethics – and this flew in the face of it.” In the realm of adversity management, we typically recommend one of two approaches: If you did it, admit it; explain yourself, show remorse and reassure it won’t happen again (Vick, Woods). If, on the other hand, you didn’t, then fight it and work toward vindication (Roger Clemens). In this case, Armstrong says he didn’t do it but, apparently, has chosen to accept the ramifications. It simply doesn’t add up.

In this Season of Debates, it would seem obvious that, for the two campaigns whose candidates meet in a debate, as well as the organizations that bring them together, a bigger audience would be better. Wouldn’t you think that you’d want as many people as possible to see, hear and read about the debate? Apparently not in one state.

Earlier this week, the two candidates for Governor of West Virginia met in a debate that, remarkably, included limited media access. Held in a 200-seat auditorium, the debate was televised by organizers (the AARP and, ironically, the West Virginia Association of Broadcasters) did not create space for journalists to cover the debate in-person. That led the Associated Press, which feeds content to member news organizations across that and every other state, to choose not to cover the event.

It seems, in planning the event, the campaigns and the organizers forgot that the media is a conduit to their audience and influencing and exposing the audience to messages is the entire purpose for the event. Too many political PR types lose perspective on traditional media’s ability to tell their candidates’ stories and deliver their messages.

It’s easy to contrast this with the only debate between Michigan’s candidates for Governor in 2010. Organized by the non-partisan Center For Michigan, it was hosted at our client, Detroit Public Television. Our team handled media relations for the event. From the beginning of planning, media access was a top priority for all involved, including both campaigns. We even sought media input from our first meeting, to make sure the needs of journalists would be considered throughout all of the planning.

The actual debate was held inside a small TV studio, which created challenges that were easily overcome by consistent and abundant access. Any news organization could access the debate’s satellite video and Internet stream feeds and broadcast or webcast it, at no cost. Media of all types from across the state were accommodated and sat in the same room with the same access as debate sponsors. After the debate, they had Q&A access to both candidates.

There’s a reason why elected officials are considered to hold “public office.” The events that put them there should also be public, in every possible way.

I miss my Kindle. I never ever thought I would say that but I do. I lost mine on a plane west last weekend and, after numerous calls and an actual visit to the United Airways “Lost and Found” in Phoenix on my return trip from San Diego, either it is still in the seat back of 15B or it is warming the hands of a slippery member of the airline cleaning crew.

Response to my loss from others has been mixed. Between expressions of sympathy I hear, just as often, “Never owned one…I like the feel of a real book in my hands” or, “I like to physically turn the pages.” Understandable thoughts, many once shared. Yet, from one longtime book lover to another, the old adage, ‘Don’t knock it ’til you’ve tried it’ definitely applies.

Just as I initially fought music downloading in favor of CDs, so too did I eschew reading electronics for the bound ink on paper tried and true. Yet, just as the availability of a wide range of music continued to shrink with the exit of the music stores, so too did the selection of written works as Borders put the corner books stores out of business before succumbing itself to market conditions and consumer preferences.

Today, I’m sold. Juggling 2-3 books at a time is now a breeze, especially when traveling. Download prices are more affordable and while the selection is far from ideal, it is growing every day. Inside its leather case, the Kindle is the same as holding a smaller book and, perhaps best of all, the Kindle store is always open. Want a new book on the Civil War at 2am? No problem.

Ala the iPod and video On Demand, the Kindle, and its friends the Nook and iPad, allows us to enjoy exactly the type of entertainment we want, when we want it, then archiving it in one convenient, portable location. I find myself reading more and learning more and while my office library may appear to be stagnating, my brain power is, in fact, doing just the opposite.

Even on the day of a Presidential Debate, one of the most talked about stories in America is about a local TV news anchor in Lacrosse, Wisconsin (market #128) who responded to a viewer email about her weight. This video is being replayed on other local newscasts, on national broadcasts and being shared on social media.

In 24 hours, her on-air commentary has generated conversation on bullying, obesity and, within the TV business, about the comments that anchors and reporters receive from viewers. I know from talking to TV people almost every day that they routinely hear receive emails and Facebook messages that make talk radio calls and online story comments seem articulate, rational and respectful. Rarely, if ever, is news time given to address any of these comments on the air. This piece by the Poynter Institute takes a look at the decision to devote the news time to the email and response, including insight from the station’s news director.

This story has me asking a question I have been quietly asking for years – why don’t we see more “overweight” anchors and reporters on TV? We live in the most overweight country in the world. So it is just pure hypocrisy that makes our culture demand that only thin people should deliver us news and information? Why do we, as a culture, insist on other forms of diversity, such as race and gender, so our TV journalists “look like the community,” but, in this regard, it’s a negative?

I began to first consider this when a TV sports reporter, who distinguished himself through his journalism and storytelling, didn’t have his contract renewed. The “word on the street” was that management didn’t want “a fat guy” on TV. So, they didn’t want a reporter talking to their audience who looks like their audience? Had they been to a game in their market? Same goes for ESPN. How many anchors or reporters or even analysts are on TV there who are “overweight.” Except for a few ex-football players, there aren’t any. So talented people are supposed to work “someplace else” because of their weight?

Stereotypes about “overweight” people are as bad as those about any other stereotypes. Not all are unhealthy. Not all are addicted to junk food or their sofas. Some gain weight because their metabolism changed as they got older. Others because of side effects of medications. Some have endocrine issues. Should those things prevent them from delivering you news and information on TV?

I have had TV friends over the years who have literally feared for their jobs if they gained a few pounds. They worry about looking older, while growing older, and how that could affect their employment. As a viewer, is that what you want keeping them up at night?

The anchor in Wisconsin, based on this one clip, seems like a solid communicator. She has built an audience over ten years. Perhaps most importantly, she has the support of her station’s management. And maybe now, she’ll help make a difference in her own industry.