Good A-level results are only awarded to pretty girls. Otherwise why would bright beauties be bouncing across our breakfast broadsheets every August, front pages splaying their pictures as they amorously congratulate their equally brainy, ever so good-looking girl friends? Just take a look at this young geordie lass.
Charlie Brooker discusses in The Guardian this summer’s fiasco with Badminton school in Dorset. Brooker shames the school which contacted journalists before results day to offer “beyootiful girls” for A-level results coverage that promised the added benefit of eye candy. According to Brooker, Badminton responded to accusations that they were guilty of prostituting their girls to the media with the nonchalant response: "We always do this and to be honest, most girls are attractive at eighteen." Frighteningly, the rest of the world is unconcerned with the attitude Badminton have demonstrated as we can see simply by browsing, for example, websites like www.sexyalevels.tumblr.com. This website dedicates itself to displaying the crème-de-la-crème of girls leaping, hugging, kissing and flaunting their youthful, beautiful bodies for photographers under the brief of ‘A-level Success’.
It is now a widely anticipated annual event that images of ecstatic young girls celebrating their results are displayed in the media giving a false representation of the country’s A-level successes. Good A-level grades are awarded to a great many pupils besides beautiful young girls.
Statistics released by the Joint Council for Qualifications show that the number of boys achieving at least a B grade has risen by 0.6% on last year whilst the same figure for girls has dropped by 0.2%. The number of boys achieving at least an A grade has also risen, but only by 0.1% whilst yet again the figure for girls has dropped by 0.2%. Most remarkably this year, the percentage of pupils achieving the new A* grade was consistent for both genders; in both cases 8.2% of pupils were awarded this accolade.
If parading the fairer sex is a tactic to inspire competition in young boys, it may be working. Graham Paton, Education Editor for The Telegraph, says: “Boys are catching up with girls as they 'rise to the challenge' of achieving elite grades”. This sentiment is echoed by Andrew Hall, Chief Executive of AQA exam board. He says: “The sense I have, and it’s a personal opinion, is that boys, I think, are recognising that the challenge is there”. However, it is unlikely that photographs of boys celebrating A-level success will ever dominate the front pages.
Andrew Hall does not appear overly concerned that, despite some improvement, girls continue to out-perform boys in A-levels. In response to the issue he simply declared: "We've scratched our heads over this." Some efforts to level the playing field have been made. Notably, the syllabus has been adapted to promote learning methods thought more suitable to the male mind with a strong focus on mathematics and the sciences. Changes are underway but perhaps Mr Hall is right to be blasé - examination reforms seem futile when we consider that men continue to be far more successful in the business world than women.
Despite girls achieving better grades, their early success is dampened by a decline in professional achievement in later life, essentially rendering their A-level triumphs as artificial. Girls consistently outperform boys in A-levels, yet if we accept the 2009 Sunday Times Rich List as a fair, albeit abbreviated review of business success, we see that only one woman is mentioned amongst the top 12. Her name is Kirsty. She appears second to and as the wife of Ernesto Bertarelli who was worth, at that time, just shy of 6 billion pounds.
The media will continue to exaggerate affairs, fuelling a constant need to entice readers with fresh and attractive news. It is unrealistic that we might one day read about the short, fat, nerdy boy with painful acne who has gotten into his first choice of university with splendid results even though such boys clearly exist.
Attractive pupils make Badminton appear an attractive school and this attracts infinite potential profit from prospective parents. Wealthy parents exposed to photographs of attractive young people with respectable results will pay to have their brood fashioned in the same way. Understanding Badminton’s offence as a business drive does not excuse their exploitation of the young girls photographed. It is only a question of whether they are morally superior for prostituting girls with a business initiative rather than for the aesthetic pleasure of the nation.
The roots of the A-level media tradition can be traced to August 2004 when the media spotlight laid its eye upon a fetching set of Cornish triplets, each girl had been offered a place at Cambridge University. Media coverage of their success was vast and the trio were termed the ‘Truro Triplets’. The novelty of the girls’ achievement and their sweet image presented to the world a blissful Britain, an image which the media elite make an effort to maintain. Images of the ‘Truro Triplets’ endeavoured to ignite our patriotism. It is not so outrageous to suppose that the girls were dressed in red, white and blue with more than fashion in mind. Take a look at their press shots from seven years ago and squint your eyes ever so slightly. You are sure to see a bright, beautiful, bouncing Union Jack, with excellent A-level results.
The beautiful success of British youth also serves to impress upon the nation a beautiful, successful Britain. We would be excused for thinking that in recent weeks the media has been fickle. The image of the UK youth, punishable for grievous crimes to the community during recent riots across the country, has been quite suddenly transformed. Within ten days, an image of hooded youngster throwing a torched bottle at an elderly person with one hand whilst propping up a 32” LCD television (security tag still attached) has been replaced with a picture of the sweet success of middle class young ladies excitedly embracing one another. This bright and beyootiful image presents us with a healing Britain, or perhaps is simply make-up plastering the wound.
Of course, unlike a photograph, reality isn't absolutly flawless.
The media, public relations, companies we meet, best practice and things that get our goat.
Wednesday 7 September 2011
Friday 26 August 2011
Cyber-Riots: London’s Rebels Without a Cause
Ferocious fires and looting louts have become the perceived face of the UK around the world over the last few weeks. Photographs of the House of Reeves furniture store in flames and a woman leaping from her burning apartment have provoked a global emotional outcry as the media voices its opinions on where the blame lies. The Internet has been set ablaze, with theories as ministers, the mayor and the international media lash out at social media as the easy target. Facebook, Twitter and BlackBerry Messaging (BBM) have been criticised as the medium for mass mobilisation for this social anti-social movement, as messages on where to meet, what was happening and how to join were posted on the sites to rally hordes of hooligans.
Psychologist Philip Zimbardo, who conducted the famous Stanford prison study, analysed the lack of reasoning and the total abrogation of responsibility that occurs in certain social situations to explain how people are persuaded to behave this way. Deindividuation is the process of a “loss of identity or loss of self-consciousness” resulting in loss of “cognitive control over motivations and emotions.” Chaos, disorder and aggression are contagious in group situations and social media is being blamed as the tool that brought people together to behave in this way.
The positive influence of social media during the riots has become overshadowed by the fevered and furious reactions of politicians – such as Conservative MPs Nadine Dorries and Louise Mensch – who are demanding it be restricted. Whilst another Conservative, Andrew Lilico has argued against them, explaining that means of communication can’t be blamed. Live updates helped people find safe routes home and escape from burning buildings; intercepting BBM helped the police prevent further riots occurring; and the video of the attack on the Malaysian student, Ashraf Haziq, went viral, causing Twitter groups to donate money to re-buy his stolen items. Social media has also been used to gather evidence following the riots as Facebook footprints led the police to the perpetrators of two attempts to instigate violence- a tactic the judge called "modern and clever policy… and policing”.
The images of smashed shops and burning buildings transmitted a message to the world that Britain is a place of chaos and brutality. Uploaded instantaneously & inundating social networking sites, these photos – published for the world to see – shattered the quintessential pomp and pageantry of Britain’s fairy-tale Royal Wedding. A darker message of volatile destruction – of an ‘underclass’ uprising – took hold of the global imagination. Russian papers have described the event as a “pogrom”, Italy deemed it urban guerrilla warfare, while Syria and Libya have used it to fault the Coalition government, comparing the UK riots to the condemned violence they experience. China on the other hand, has been criticising the negative effects of our unrestricted internet among other issues. People’s Daily, a Chinese newspaper reported:
"The West have been talking about supporting internet freedom, and oppose other countries' government to control this kind of websites [sic], now we can say they are tasting the bitter fruit [of their complacency] and they can't complain about it,"
Elsewhere, advisory cautions had been issued to travellers, concerns about the UK’s ability to host the 2012 Olympic Games have been expressed and Britain’s immigration policies, policing and economic recovery have been heavily criticised.
To regain control and put a stop to further damage of the national profile David Cameron gave a speech from his constituency in affluent Oxfordshire, where he was stood in front of community-licensed graffiti in a shirt and tie. Unfortunately his efforts were marred by the reluctance to end his Tuscan holiday early, as Twitter lit up claiming he was failing to take his position as Prime Minister and the volatile situation seriously. Using the riots as post hoc evidence to reinforce the Big Society agenda, his speech has also been criticised.
The world’s media has become fascinated by the UK in turmoil, as the destructive mob and the phone-hacking scandal cause Britain’s PR some serious damage. Linking such airs of tyranny, to the theme of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, one BBC reporter observed:
“There’s something rotten about Britain. From the richest and most powerful to the poorest and most excluded, turning in on itself, there is greed, selfishness and immorality.”
The UK has been playing out its woes on the world stage, captivating the media, provoking tempers and igniting social networking sites for better and for worse. The photograph of the army of brooms is a glorious symbol of Britain not only reclaiming the streets but defiantly and determinedly reclaiming its dignity. The huge @riotcleanup efforts were facilitated within in a matter of hours via Twitter, even drawing celebrities out onto the streets to sweep up the destruction. Thousands more immediately responded to clean-up Britain, in direct and heart-warming contrast to the number of people responsible for its break down; police having made around 2000 arrests so far. The burning buildings, violent thugs and frightened citizens may well have arrested the world’s attention, but it is the picture of a defiant Britain with its brooms in the air that spoke back about the state of Britain. This is the Britain we want people to see, a Britain where positive messages outweigh the bad.
As Nadine Dorries and Louise Mensch call for a crackdown on social media, it is worth asking whether killing the messenger is the solution to the problem. Whether “looters are scum” or whether “rioting is the language of the unheard”- as Martin Luther King put it, people are communicating on social issues. Cameron, retorting to his “Broken Britain” rhetoric, at least looks at possible causes for the disorder, although perhaps his “Big Society” is a label for something that already exists. For the image of brooms brandished in the air is a triumph for social networking sites and also for Britain’s PR. The schadenfreude surrounding the scandals of Britain is swept away with the debris, as Britain’s pride and determination pulls the country back together with the final photograph of the 2011 riots.
Psychologist Philip Zimbardo, who conducted the famous Stanford prison study, analysed the lack of reasoning and the total abrogation of responsibility that occurs in certain social situations to explain how people are persuaded to behave this way. Deindividuation is the process of a “loss of identity or loss of self-consciousness” resulting in loss of “cognitive control over motivations and emotions.” Chaos, disorder and aggression are contagious in group situations and social media is being blamed as the tool that brought people together to behave in this way.
The positive influence of social media during the riots has become overshadowed by the fevered and furious reactions of politicians – such as Conservative MPs Nadine Dorries and Louise Mensch – who are demanding it be restricted. Whilst another Conservative, Andrew Lilico has argued against them, explaining that means of communication can’t be blamed. Live updates helped people find safe routes home and escape from burning buildings; intercepting BBM helped the police prevent further riots occurring; and the video of the attack on the Malaysian student, Ashraf Haziq, went viral, causing Twitter groups to donate money to re-buy his stolen items. Social media has also been used to gather evidence following the riots as Facebook footprints led the police to the perpetrators of two attempts to instigate violence- a tactic the judge called "modern and clever policy… and policing”.
The images of smashed shops and burning buildings transmitted a message to the world that Britain is a place of chaos and brutality. Uploaded instantaneously & inundating social networking sites, these photos – published for the world to see – shattered the quintessential pomp and pageantry of Britain’s fairy-tale Royal Wedding. A darker message of volatile destruction – of an ‘underclass’ uprising – took hold of the global imagination. Russian papers have described the event as a “pogrom”, Italy deemed it urban guerrilla warfare, while Syria and Libya have used it to fault the Coalition government, comparing the UK riots to the condemned violence they experience. China on the other hand, has been criticising the negative effects of our unrestricted internet among other issues. People’s Daily, a Chinese newspaper reported:
"The West have been talking about supporting internet freedom, and oppose other countries' government to control this kind of websites [sic], now we can say they are tasting the bitter fruit [of their complacency] and they can't complain about it,"
Elsewhere, advisory cautions had been issued to travellers, concerns about the UK’s ability to host the 2012 Olympic Games have been expressed and Britain’s immigration policies, policing and economic recovery have been heavily criticised.
To regain control and put a stop to further damage of the national profile David Cameron gave a speech from his constituency in affluent Oxfordshire, where he was stood in front of community-licensed graffiti in a shirt and tie. Unfortunately his efforts were marred by the reluctance to end his Tuscan holiday early, as Twitter lit up claiming he was failing to take his position as Prime Minister and the volatile situation seriously. Using the riots as post hoc evidence to reinforce the Big Society agenda, his speech has also been criticised.
The world’s media has become fascinated by the UK in turmoil, as the destructive mob and the phone-hacking scandal cause Britain’s PR some serious damage. Linking such airs of tyranny, to the theme of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, one BBC reporter observed:
“There’s something rotten about Britain. From the richest and most powerful to the poorest and most excluded, turning in on itself, there is greed, selfishness and immorality.”
The UK has been playing out its woes on the world stage, captivating the media, provoking tempers and igniting social networking sites for better and for worse. The photograph of the army of brooms is a glorious symbol of Britain not only reclaiming the streets but defiantly and determinedly reclaiming its dignity. The huge @riotcleanup efforts were facilitated within in a matter of hours via Twitter, even drawing celebrities out onto the streets to sweep up the destruction. Thousands more immediately responded to clean-up Britain, in direct and heart-warming contrast to the number of people responsible for its break down; police having made around 2000 arrests so far. The burning buildings, violent thugs and frightened citizens may well have arrested the world’s attention, but it is the picture of a defiant Britain with its brooms in the air that spoke back about the state of Britain. This is the Britain we want people to see, a Britain where positive messages outweigh the bad.
As Nadine Dorries and Louise Mensch call for a crackdown on social media, it is worth asking whether killing the messenger is the solution to the problem. Whether “looters are scum” or whether “rioting is the language of the unheard”- as Martin Luther King put it, people are communicating on social issues. Cameron, retorting to his “Broken Britain” rhetoric, at least looks at possible causes for the disorder, although perhaps his “Big Society” is a label for something that already exists. For the image of brooms brandished in the air is a triumph for social networking sites and also for Britain’s PR. The schadenfreude surrounding the scandals of Britain is swept away with the debris, as Britain’s pride and determination pulls the country back together with the final photograph of the 2011 riots.
Friday 19 August 2011
Hoax Releases Take No IQ
The infamous prankster behind the urban fox hunting hoax once said: “If you want to make something news, all you have to do is put it on the internet”. Seriously, anything goes. The power of the internet enables a simple tweet, blog or amateur website to easily become front page news. Well, that’s a bit of an exaggeration, but the increasing frequency of hoax stories gaining legitimate media coverage do suggest it’s getting easier to get almost anything reported, as long as almighty Google concurs.
Most recently, the media-elite likes of CNN, the BBC, the Telegraph and Forbes fell victim to a prankster when they all reported the results of a survey that found Internet Explorer users had lower IQs than any other browser users. As it turns out Internet Explorer users were able to breathe a sigh of relief, as this turned out to be a hoax press release from ‘ApTiquant’ - a fake research specialist - who fooled the media giants with a make-shift website and a well written press release. As thousands of disgruntled IE users questioned the findings the BBC decided to do some investigating of their own. According to Professor David Spiegelhalter of Cambridge University, the statistics were “implausible”. The story was swiftly rubbished and the journalists who acted as puppets for the hoaxer were left a radiant shade of fuchsia.
The ease with which the rogue release penetrated the newsrooms of the UK highlights a cause for concern in the media world. Not to suggest reporters have been transported back to a 1940s newsroom where the phrase “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story” echoed around Fleet Street, but it seems some journalists have forgotten the simplest of rules: check your facts. Hacks aren’t checking the credibility of their sources before sending the story to print, and this isn’t a first time offence.
Back in February, the Media Standards Trust decided to play a hoax of their own to test the naivety of the media. The organisation investigated how many articles had sections cut-and-pasted straight from their original hoax press release, using their Nick Davis inspired website churnalism.com. They fabricated a spoof story to try and fool the British press into reporting them as a legitimate newsworthy article and found alarming results. The Sun reported on the new craze of ‘the Penazzle’ – the male alternative to the crystal accessorising offered by the Vajazzle; a bogus Facebook-led campaign to return the new stray cat at 10 Downing Street to its rightful owner hit the Metro and BBC 5 live; and the fake ‘alarmed chastity garter’ made worldwide news. These all showed that journalists are all too eager to cut, copy and paste without corroborating their source material. Three-nil to the Media Standards Trust, who successfully showed idle journalists that they shouldn’t take the latest social media trend as a reliable news source.
The first rule of PR is: you do not annoy the journalists. The second rule of PR is: you do not annoy the journalists. Successful PR is built on strong media relations and transparency, and news reporters need to be able to trust the releases they receive. If time-wasting pranksters cause hacks to lose faith in the fail-safe press release, there could be precarious consequences for relations between the PR and media industries.
The IE IQ hoax demonstrates the potential danger pranksters pose to the PR world. Sniggering at the misfortunes of the journalists who got it wrong can feel shamefully good, particularly at a time when their reputations are in tatters after the phone hacking fiasco. However, mockery plays straight into the hands of the hoaxers. Journalists need to build up their defence strategy through careful research and corroboration.
Creating a hoax release is very easy – too easy – as literally anyone can do it. Generating interest in them is also relatively easy, as the more shocking the better; hoaxers can roam free through their imagination for the most bizarre concepts, unlimited by truth. However, as they say, “the truth is stranger than fiction” and finding a scoop backed up by real statistics, communicating real issues and based on a real investigation, is what people want. It may be more difficult to find the interesting stories but credible, creative news generation – the business of PR people – is highly valuable, and it takes skill to achieve coverage when being honest.
Taking a release at face-value is dangerous, leaving journalists open to hoaxes. Moreover, the net isn’t a trustworthy source for information in isolation. Tarnishing all journalists with the ‘lazy’ brush is unfair though. In the 24/7 internet age journalists are under huge pressure to deliver current and quick news. Hacks have been rendered constantly on deadlines and whilst it may not be surprising that mistakes get made, it is surprising the levels of senior news authorities that these imaginary tales can pervade. A firmer line has to be drawn, for it was only the BBC who rang the alarm on the IE findings.
After all, if everything published on the internet was reported as true, the world would have far more to worry about than the latest accessory for the nether regions and the Prime Minister’s new cat.
Most recently, the media-elite likes of CNN, the BBC, the Telegraph and Forbes fell victim to a prankster when they all reported the results of a survey that found Internet Explorer users had lower IQs than any other browser users. As it turns out Internet Explorer users were able to breathe a sigh of relief, as this turned out to be a hoax press release from ‘ApTiquant’ - a fake research specialist - who fooled the media giants with a make-shift website and a well written press release. As thousands of disgruntled IE users questioned the findings the BBC decided to do some investigating of their own. According to Professor David Spiegelhalter of Cambridge University, the statistics were “implausible”. The story was swiftly rubbished and the journalists who acted as puppets for the hoaxer were left a radiant shade of fuchsia.
The ease with which the rogue release penetrated the newsrooms of the UK highlights a cause for concern in the media world. Not to suggest reporters have been transported back to a 1940s newsroom where the phrase “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story” echoed around Fleet Street, but it seems some journalists have forgotten the simplest of rules: check your facts. Hacks aren’t checking the credibility of their sources before sending the story to print, and this isn’t a first time offence.
Back in February, the Media Standards Trust decided to play a hoax of their own to test the naivety of the media. The organisation investigated how many articles had sections cut-and-pasted straight from their original hoax press release, using their Nick Davis inspired website churnalism.com. They fabricated a spoof story to try and fool the British press into reporting them as a legitimate newsworthy article and found alarming results. The Sun reported on the new craze of ‘the Penazzle’ – the male alternative to the crystal accessorising offered by the Vajazzle; a bogus Facebook-led campaign to return the new stray cat at 10 Downing Street to its rightful owner hit the Metro and BBC 5 live; and the fake ‘alarmed chastity garter’ made worldwide news. These all showed that journalists are all too eager to cut, copy and paste without corroborating their source material. Three-nil to the Media Standards Trust, who successfully showed idle journalists that they shouldn’t take the latest social media trend as a reliable news source.
The first rule of PR is: you do not annoy the journalists. The second rule of PR is: you do not annoy the journalists. Successful PR is built on strong media relations and transparency, and news reporters need to be able to trust the releases they receive. If time-wasting pranksters cause hacks to lose faith in the fail-safe press release, there could be precarious consequences for relations between the PR and media industries.
The IE IQ hoax demonstrates the potential danger pranksters pose to the PR world. Sniggering at the misfortunes of the journalists who got it wrong can feel shamefully good, particularly at a time when their reputations are in tatters after the phone hacking fiasco. However, mockery plays straight into the hands of the hoaxers. Journalists need to build up their defence strategy through careful research and corroboration.
Creating a hoax release is very easy – too easy – as literally anyone can do it. Generating interest in them is also relatively easy, as the more shocking the better; hoaxers can roam free through their imagination for the most bizarre concepts, unlimited by truth. However, as they say, “the truth is stranger than fiction” and finding a scoop backed up by real statistics, communicating real issues and based on a real investigation, is what people want. It may be more difficult to find the interesting stories but credible, creative news generation – the business of PR people – is highly valuable, and it takes skill to achieve coverage when being honest.
Taking a release at face-value is dangerous, leaving journalists open to hoaxes. Moreover, the net isn’t a trustworthy source for information in isolation. Tarnishing all journalists with the ‘lazy’ brush is unfair though. In the 24/7 internet age journalists are under huge pressure to deliver current and quick news. Hacks have been rendered constantly on deadlines and whilst it may not be surprising that mistakes get made, it is surprising the levels of senior news authorities that these imaginary tales can pervade. A firmer line has to be drawn, for it was only the BBC who rang the alarm on the IE findings.
After all, if everything published on the internet was reported as true, the world would have far more to worry about than the latest accessory for the nether regions and the Prime Minister’s new cat.
Thursday 14 July 2011
Blagged by a blog, hacks should pull up their socks
The popular American online newspaper Huffington Post launched its UK edition last week and with the site reading like a who’s who of the political, social and entertainment elite, one would assume that blogging is as good a form of journalism as any. Co-founder Arianna Huffington knows that much of her brand’s success is engagement with the audience and “the incredible impact social media can have in accelerating change”. Ordinary citizens have slowly become instrumental in the modern news making process and their shouts are finally being heard, but as social media and the blogosphere expand it’s difficult to see whether it’s a step forward for democracy or just more online noise pollution.
Today social networking, championed by the masses, is a force to be reckoned with. Facebook has more than 750 million users and every day the world writes an equivalent of a 10 million page book in Tweets. The internet’s power to impact on the news has been evident in the News of the World phone hacking scandal of late, where the online campaign to boycott the newspaper influenced the Murdoch Empire’s decision to discontinue the 168 year old publication. News of the scandal spread like wildfire and became, in a matter of days, the whole nation’s chosen topic of conversation-- starting on their laptops and ending over a pint in the pub. It seems the internet has developed into quite the formidable forum for debate, comment and opinion.
A great example of the proliferation of citizen journalism is the blog ‘A gay girl in Damascus’ which attracted coverage from the most prestigious of news corporations, the BBC, The Guardian and CNN to name a few. These publications’ respected journalists; moved by the plight of Amina Abdallah Araf al Omari- a young lesbian woman living in politically unstable Muslim Syria, hung on the blogger’s every word and recounted her tales of trials and tragedy to their sizeable readerships. Sharing her personal struggle with her sexuality set against the backdrop of a war-torn and fiercely religious country, Amina’s experiences appeared to cast a spotlight on serious political issues surrounding the repressive Syrian regime.
The power of the blog came into full force when her ‘cousin’ alerted followers that Amina had been abducted by security forces, triggering online campaigns and causing the US embassy to launch an investigation on her whereabouts. Little did they know Amina was in fact the alter-ego of Tom MacMaster-- a 40 year old American with a life-size imagination, living out his bizarre fantasy from the comfort of his bedroom in the pretty Scottish city of Edinburgh. Quite a coup for the Masters student, who transformed his image from an unsightly unknown to an attractive, compelling wordsmith; racking up almost 100,000 page views and counting some of the world’s most established journos among his admirers. Eventually MacMaster confirmed growing suspicions that his blog was fictional, but the plot continued to thicken when it emerged ‘Amina’ was pursuing an online relationship with ‘Paula Brooks’, the editor of pro-homosexuality site ‘Lez Get Real’- another site posing under a false premise. Both transpired to be middle aged male bloggers, no doubt getting a kick out of successfully seducing a lesbian, completely oblivious to each others true gender – the irony is far from lost.
‘A Gay Girl in Damascus’ sparked outrage in the blogosphere with many Syrians claiming MacMaster has taken away their voice in true ‘boy who cried wolf’ style, potentially damaging the opportunity for Middle Eastern citizens to have their say. It’s worth remembering, however, that reputable news companies handed ‘Amina’ the megaphone in the first place. What began as a personal project ended up a worldwide phenomenon – all because professional journalists fell for the story hook line and sinker. An industry that prides itself on holding others to account and exposing wrongdoing forgot the golden rule of journalism, check, double check and bloody well check the facts again- and were too busy pulling on the nation’s heartstrings to investigate the credibility of their sources.
There’s no doubt that the Internet has finally put the citizen on the news map, albeit armed with the handy shield of the computer screen. There’s a lot of stuff on the web that is fake, misleading and incorrect. Unfortunately, it’s a fact of life that comes with the territory of being the biggest advance in communication in our time. The age old warning of online predators is more relevant today than ever and professional journalists would do well to remember that you can’t always trust people you meet on the net.
Traditional news media have been given an opportunity to play God with the swathes of information now available and must hand pick the wheat from the chaff – instead lazy journalism has left them scraping the barrel. Many attempts at citizen journalism do become valid sources of information, but MacMaster isn’t the first and certainly won’t be the last of the online con artists. With so many different voices vying for attention, internet noise pollution is rife but manageable. The noise only becomes problematic when journalists neglect the basic principles of their profession and allow unchecked information to disguise itself as news. After all, ‘Amina’ was only telling a tale, not writing the front pages of a bestselling newspaper.
Today social networking, championed by the masses, is a force to be reckoned with. Facebook has more than 750 million users and every day the world writes an equivalent of a 10 million page book in Tweets. The internet’s power to impact on the news has been evident in the News of the World phone hacking scandal of late, where the online campaign to boycott the newspaper influenced the Murdoch Empire’s decision to discontinue the 168 year old publication. News of the scandal spread like wildfire and became, in a matter of days, the whole nation’s chosen topic of conversation-- starting on their laptops and ending over a pint in the pub. It seems the internet has developed into quite the formidable forum for debate, comment and opinion.
A great example of the proliferation of citizen journalism is the blog ‘A gay girl in Damascus’ which attracted coverage from the most prestigious of news corporations, the BBC, The Guardian and CNN to name a few. These publications’ respected journalists; moved by the plight of Amina Abdallah Araf al Omari- a young lesbian woman living in politically unstable Muslim Syria, hung on the blogger’s every word and recounted her tales of trials and tragedy to their sizeable readerships. Sharing her personal struggle with her sexuality set against the backdrop of a war-torn and fiercely religious country, Amina’s experiences appeared to cast a spotlight on serious political issues surrounding the repressive Syrian regime.
The power of the blog came into full force when her ‘cousin’ alerted followers that Amina had been abducted by security forces, triggering online campaigns and causing the US embassy to launch an investigation on her whereabouts. Little did they know Amina was in fact the alter-ego of Tom MacMaster-- a 40 year old American with a life-size imagination, living out his bizarre fantasy from the comfort of his bedroom in the pretty Scottish city of Edinburgh. Quite a coup for the Masters student, who transformed his image from an unsightly unknown to an attractive, compelling wordsmith; racking up almost 100,000 page views and counting some of the world’s most established journos among his admirers. Eventually MacMaster confirmed growing suspicions that his blog was fictional, but the plot continued to thicken when it emerged ‘Amina’ was pursuing an online relationship with ‘Paula Brooks’, the editor of pro-homosexuality site ‘Lez Get Real’- another site posing under a false premise. Both transpired to be middle aged male bloggers, no doubt getting a kick out of successfully seducing a lesbian, completely oblivious to each others true gender – the irony is far from lost.
‘A Gay Girl in Damascus’ sparked outrage in the blogosphere with many Syrians claiming MacMaster has taken away their voice in true ‘boy who cried wolf’ style, potentially damaging the opportunity for Middle Eastern citizens to have their say. It’s worth remembering, however, that reputable news companies handed ‘Amina’ the megaphone in the first place. What began as a personal project ended up a worldwide phenomenon – all because professional journalists fell for the story hook line and sinker. An industry that prides itself on holding others to account and exposing wrongdoing forgot the golden rule of journalism, check, double check and bloody well check the facts again- and were too busy pulling on the nation’s heartstrings to investigate the credibility of their sources.
There’s no doubt that the Internet has finally put the citizen on the news map, albeit armed with the handy shield of the computer screen. There’s a lot of stuff on the web that is fake, misleading and incorrect. Unfortunately, it’s a fact of life that comes with the territory of being the biggest advance in communication in our time. The age old warning of online predators is more relevant today than ever and professional journalists would do well to remember that you can’t always trust people you meet on the net.
Traditional news media have been given an opportunity to play God with the swathes of information now available and must hand pick the wheat from the chaff – instead lazy journalism has left them scraping the barrel. Many attempts at citizen journalism do become valid sources of information, but MacMaster isn’t the first and certainly won’t be the last of the online con artists. With so many different voices vying for attention, internet noise pollution is rife but manageable. The noise only becomes problematic when journalists neglect the basic principles of their profession and allow unchecked information to disguise itself as news. After all, ‘Amina’ was only telling a tale, not writing the front pages of a bestselling newspaper.
Thursday 7 July 2011
Revolt against the Hack King
After years of criticising PR people for trying to manipulate the media using sneaky tactics, suddenly the journalist finds themselves in the dock. The News of the World has this week been accused of the most unimaginable corruption that not only goes against basic media ethics, but makes a farce of their own campaigns. In the wake of revelations that Murdoch’s clan tapped the phones of murdered schoolgirls Millie Dowler, Sarah Payne and countless war widows, News International’s support for Help the Heroes and NOTW’s notorious anti paedophile movement seems nothing short of a sick joke.
It appears that a few journalists may have misplaced their halo and temporarily fallen out of favour with the public. The Murdoch Empire reportedly lost around £600m when lucrative advertisers pulled out, but this proved to be just pennies to the media mogul as News Corporation announced the heckled publication was coming to an end just moments ago. The fact that they can so swiftly pull one of Britain’s bestselling newspapers off the shelves in the blink of an eye speaks volumes about how insignificant that one media title is to the Murdoch Empire. While the masses have successfully boycotted the newspaper in disgust it seems we are all forgetting a few key details. News of the World is owned by News International, which is of course owned by News Corporation, owned by Rupert Murdoch but his power doesn’t stop there. His ventures span all across the media and in fact the world. A few advertisers pulling out of one Sunday issue is nothing more than a pinprick-- cancelling a profitable paper is merely an inconvenience. If anything the furore surrounding the NOTW will probably increase Murdoch’s readership – place your bets now on how long it will take to launch The Sun on Sunday? The last NOTW edition this weekend will no doubt be its best selling issue.
It’s a sad truth but people will flood towards the corporation’s other newspapers as though these appalling acts of insensitivity and criminality never even happened. It’s likely that the newspaper ‘watchdog’ the media funded Press Complaints Commission will get off lightly too, even though they’ve proved themselves to be so toothless they need dentures.
Sitting in a Media Standards Trust lecture last night about the dangers of ‘Churnalism’, where ‘Press Release’ is branded a dirty phrase, we can’t help but wonder about the naivety and supercilious attitudes of some of the journalists at present. The world’s most dominant media Empire is accused of tampering with evidence in a murder inquiry and hacking the phones of grieving families but the alleged villain of the evening, at this conference anyway, is the PR exec. Perhaps the one saving grace of this whole murky affair is that the journalist is no longer the hero. Only a few might have been dragged kicking and screaming from their pedestal but its high time we saw the industry as a whole in a new light, flaws and all. We’re pretty sure ‘democracy’ doesn’t involve a private detective with a penchant for ear wigging, expensive advertising contracts that limit reporting on important news, or an unrestrained media Empire.
The time is right for politicians, businesses, regulators and the public to finally feel brave enough to pick a fight with the guy who buys ink by the barrel and puts tits on page 3.
It appears that a few journalists may have misplaced their halo and temporarily fallen out of favour with the public. The Murdoch Empire reportedly lost around £600m when lucrative advertisers pulled out, but this proved to be just pennies to the media mogul as News Corporation announced the heckled publication was coming to an end just moments ago. The fact that they can so swiftly pull one of Britain’s bestselling newspapers off the shelves in the blink of an eye speaks volumes about how insignificant that one media title is to the Murdoch Empire. While the masses have successfully boycotted the newspaper in disgust it seems we are all forgetting a few key details. News of the World is owned by News International, which is of course owned by News Corporation, owned by Rupert Murdoch but his power doesn’t stop there. His ventures span all across the media and in fact the world. A few advertisers pulling out of one Sunday issue is nothing more than a pinprick-- cancelling a profitable paper is merely an inconvenience. If anything the furore surrounding the NOTW will probably increase Murdoch’s readership – place your bets now on how long it will take to launch The Sun on Sunday? The last NOTW edition this weekend will no doubt be its best selling issue.
It’s a sad truth but people will flood towards the corporation’s other newspapers as though these appalling acts of insensitivity and criminality never even happened. It’s likely that the newspaper ‘watchdog’ the media funded Press Complaints Commission will get off lightly too, even though they’ve proved themselves to be so toothless they need dentures.
Sitting in a Media Standards Trust lecture last night about the dangers of ‘Churnalism’, where ‘Press Release’ is branded a dirty phrase, we can’t help but wonder about the naivety and supercilious attitudes of some of the journalists at present. The world’s most dominant media Empire is accused of tampering with evidence in a murder inquiry and hacking the phones of grieving families but the alleged villain of the evening, at this conference anyway, is the PR exec. Perhaps the one saving grace of this whole murky affair is that the journalist is no longer the hero. Only a few might have been dragged kicking and screaming from their pedestal but its high time we saw the industry as a whole in a new light, flaws and all. We’re pretty sure ‘democracy’ doesn’t involve a private detective with a penchant for ear wigging, expensive advertising contracts that limit reporting on important news, or an unrestrained media Empire.
The time is right for politicians, businesses, regulators and the public to finally feel brave enough to pick a fight with the guy who buys ink by the barrel and puts tits on page 3.
Tuesday 14 June 2011
Social Media is not Super-injunction Kryptonite
The recent outburst of super-injunction controversy raises major concerns about privacy. Things got out of control when Twitter users – allegedly including Piers Morgan, Boy George, Dom Joly and journalist Toby Young - made details of celebrities who had achieved super-injunctions public. It seems the almighty mob of social media users, with its worldwide status and arrogant sense of unrestricted freedom, is rebelliously challenging the English judicial system.
The purpose of a super-injunction is to guarantee a person absolute confidentiality regarding strictly private matters. This means that individuals and the collective media are banned from publishing anything about the applicant that is deemed private, and also prohibits any reference to the existence of the injunction itself.
However, social networking sites - which have made it easy for people to make public announcements and liberally voice personal opinions - are making the enforcement of these super-injunctions extremely difficult. It was initially thought impossible to take any action against the Twitter users who tweeted and re-tweeted defamatory announcements regarding super-injunctions, but it is wrong for social media users to be able to effortlessly sidestep the highly restrictive constraints imposed on the traditional media. Those individuals who breach court orders should pay damages just as any media company should. Thankfully this has now been recognised by Attorney General Dominic Grieve who warned that anyone who was under the impression that modern methods of communication could allow them to “act with impunity” may be in for “a rude shock”.
The whole nature of the super-injunction controversy raises worrying issues. It seems people are becoming increasingly obsessed with knowing every intimate detail of both their friends’ and public figures’ lives, irrespective of whether it really concerns or affects them in any way. Fuelled by the gossip culture, rather than people having a right to privacy, there is now a strong sense that people are demanding a right to be informed of everyone else’s private matters.
Journalists and newspapers have spoken out against super-injunctions, protesting that the freedom of the media and their freedom of speech are being compromised and that as a result, they are being prevented from serving the so-called public interest. However, claiming that they are being repressed by legally approved sanctions regarding a public figure’s private life is simply absurd. The media is an incredibly powerful entity which can greatly influence public opinion in both a constructive and destructive manner, and this is a fact of which they are well aware. Their primary interest – and one that may explain their objections to super-injunctions - is to make money and it doesn’t take a genius to tell you that revealing scandal and private matters sells newspapers and boosts circulation, which sells advertising.
MP’s who have revealed details of super-injunctions in Parliament have also been in the firing line for abusing their parliamentary privilege, with one incident being described by Labour MP Mr Cryer as “an act of gross opportunism by a politician on an ego trip." Just as is the case with the media, there is certainly every reason to be suspicious of the motivation behind these MP’s announcements because they too have the selfish interests of both their own and their party’s popularity in mind.
However, privacy is not an issue to be taken lightly and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1998 Human Rights Act offers protection for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence" that is considered – importantly - "necessary in a democratic society".
Celebrities deserve a private life as much as everyone else. It is not a logical consequence that someone who has entered into the public eye for being a talented sportsman, singer or actor should be stripped of the right to respect of personal privacy. More so, knowing their personal life is definitely not “necessary in a democratic society". There is no doubt that those who dared to flout the law via Twitter would be horrified at the thought of details of their own private affairs being callously splashed over the Internet. So maybe this should be something to consider before crossing into the dangerous territory of passing judgement and publicly humiliating others.
Effectively managing social media is clearly complex but the premise is simple: people should not consciously breach the law. Serious thought on how to address privacy issues in the world of modern technology is necessary and Prime Minister David Cameron conceded to this view commenting that, “The law and the practice has got to catch up with how people consume media today.”
As a corollary, thought must also be given to the merits of particular super-injunctions. This is why new guidelines have been issued following a report published by Lord Neuberger on 19th May 2011. In cases where they are justifiable and short-term secrecy is “strictly necessary” – such as protecting the name of a juvenile who is accused of a crime - they should be upheld and not made a mockery by social networking sites.
Moreover, information posted on the Internet is often false. This can result in raising unnecessary public concern and, in the case of super injunctions, lead to innocent celebrities being named and shamed for injunctions that they didn’t apply for. One example of this involved Jemima Khan being alleged of taking out a super-injunction to prevent the publication of intimate photos of her with Jeremy Clarkson. The mother of two denied the claims and expressed anger towards those responsible saying, “I hope the people who made this story up realise that my sons will be bullied at school because of it. Plus I’m getting vile hate tweets.”
The very nature of social media renders it extremely difficult to manage, but as Steven Barnett, professor of communications at the University of Westminster said: "Those who deliberately and systematically attempt to undermine the decisions of the courts should be sought out and brought to justice."
The purpose of a super-injunction is to guarantee a person absolute confidentiality regarding strictly private matters. This means that individuals and the collective media are banned from publishing anything about the applicant that is deemed private, and also prohibits any reference to the existence of the injunction itself.
However, social networking sites - which have made it easy for people to make public announcements and liberally voice personal opinions - are making the enforcement of these super-injunctions extremely difficult. It was initially thought impossible to take any action against the Twitter users who tweeted and re-tweeted defamatory announcements regarding super-injunctions, but it is wrong for social media users to be able to effortlessly sidestep the highly restrictive constraints imposed on the traditional media. Those individuals who breach court orders should pay damages just as any media company should. Thankfully this has now been recognised by Attorney General Dominic Grieve who warned that anyone who was under the impression that modern methods of communication could allow them to “act with impunity” may be in for “a rude shock”.
The whole nature of the super-injunction controversy raises worrying issues. It seems people are becoming increasingly obsessed with knowing every intimate detail of both their friends’ and public figures’ lives, irrespective of whether it really concerns or affects them in any way. Fuelled by the gossip culture, rather than people having a right to privacy, there is now a strong sense that people are demanding a right to be informed of everyone else’s private matters.
Journalists and newspapers have spoken out against super-injunctions, protesting that the freedom of the media and their freedom of speech are being compromised and that as a result, they are being prevented from serving the so-called public interest. However, claiming that they are being repressed by legally approved sanctions regarding a public figure’s private life is simply absurd. The media is an incredibly powerful entity which can greatly influence public opinion in both a constructive and destructive manner, and this is a fact of which they are well aware. Their primary interest – and one that may explain their objections to super-injunctions - is to make money and it doesn’t take a genius to tell you that revealing scandal and private matters sells newspapers and boosts circulation, which sells advertising.
MP’s who have revealed details of super-injunctions in Parliament have also been in the firing line for abusing their parliamentary privilege, with one incident being described by Labour MP Mr Cryer as “an act of gross opportunism by a politician on an ego trip." Just as is the case with the media, there is certainly every reason to be suspicious of the motivation behind these MP’s announcements because they too have the selfish interests of both their own and their party’s popularity in mind.
However, privacy is not an issue to be taken lightly and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1998 Human Rights Act offers protection for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence" that is considered – importantly - "necessary in a democratic society".
Celebrities deserve a private life as much as everyone else. It is not a logical consequence that someone who has entered into the public eye for being a talented sportsman, singer or actor should be stripped of the right to respect of personal privacy. More so, knowing their personal life is definitely not “necessary in a democratic society". There is no doubt that those who dared to flout the law via Twitter would be horrified at the thought of details of their own private affairs being callously splashed over the Internet. So maybe this should be something to consider before crossing into the dangerous territory of passing judgement and publicly humiliating others.
Effectively managing social media is clearly complex but the premise is simple: people should not consciously breach the law. Serious thought on how to address privacy issues in the world of modern technology is necessary and Prime Minister David Cameron conceded to this view commenting that, “The law and the practice has got to catch up with how people consume media today.”
As a corollary, thought must also be given to the merits of particular super-injunctions. This is why new guidelines have been issued following a report published by Lord Neuberger on 19th May 2011. In cases where they are justifiable and short-term secrecy is “strictly necessary” – such as protecting the name of a juvenile who is accused of a crime - they should be upheld and not made a mockery by social networking sites.
Moreover, information posted on the Internet is often false. This can result in raising unnecessary public concern and, in the case of super injunctions, lead to innocent celebrities being named and shamed for injunctions that they didn’t apply for. One example of this involved Jemima Khan being alleged of taking out a super-injunction to prevent the publication of intimate photos of her with Jeremy Clarkson. The mother of two denied the claims and expressed anger towards those responsible saying, “I hope the people who made this story up realise that my sons will be bullied at school because of it. Plus I’m getting vile hate tweets.”
The very nature of social media renders it extremely difficult to manage, but as Steven Barnett, professor of communications at the University of Westminster said: "Those who deliberately and systematically attempt to undermine the decisions of the courts should be sought out and brought to justice."
Friday 3 June 2011
PR Controversy Fuels Seven Figure Contracts
If the media thinks it has struck a blow to the large public relations companies recently exposed as indulging in arguably unethical activities, then the Fourth Estate sorely needs a reality check.
The row over global PR companies cooperating with controversial foreign Governments has given these agencies free – and potentially extremely lucrative – publicity, because the truth is that controversial PR can be a goldmine for PR companies willing to take on ethically questionable clients.
“Google-gate” – in which Burson-Marsteller were hired by Facebook allegedly to pitch negative stories about Google to the US media – focused on Burson-Marsteller’s tactics to disparage the search and digital media company. The company has not stayed away from controversial clients previously, and allegedly worked with the Nigerian government after claims of genocide in the Nigerian Civil War and the Argentine junta following the disappearance of 35,000 civilians. Putting a positive spin on these types of issues is clearly not in the same stratosphere of PR as promoting the latest bronzer or lip gloss to Cosmo.
Burson-Marsteller isn’t the only agency to have taken on controversial clients. Bell Pottinger has been harshly criticised by protestors for its decision to work for the Bahrain government following the recent clashes between government forces and anti-regime demonstrators. The contract was previously held by Weber-Shandwick and is, according to PR Week, “understood to be worth a seven-figure sum annually.”
Television presenter and “renowned PR expert” Lauren Laverne laid into major PR companies on Channel 4’s damp squib of a satire show 10 O’Clock Live. Those bearing her brutal brunt included Bell Pottinger, Brown Lloyd James for its alleged work with Colonel Gadaffi, and Burson-Marsteller for its work in supposedly assisting a number of dictatorial regimes.
Lord Bell has defended his company, saying: “The implication that in some way my company and I damage the reputation of the industry is absurd,” adding that his company “abides by all the regulations of a public company.” Regarding the contract in Bahrain, he reiterated Bell Pottinger’s role: “We work for the Economic Development board. Whatever happens, the economy has got to grow. We're nothing to do with the constitution; we're nothing to do with Sunnis and Shiites.”
2011 has already thrown up some monumental news stories, not least the anti-regime uprisings in Northern Africa and the Middle East. With increasing calls for political reform, governments are more desperate than ever for some of the most skilled PR experts to protect their reputations, and to spin what has been called the “unspinnable”.
Google-gate merely served as a reminder of the nature of competitive business in the PR industry. Steve Earl, MD of Speed Communications, argued that the primary thing that Burson-Marsteller got wrong was its “amateur and clumsy” methods of smearing, suggesting the PR industry should just “admit” such practices “rather than getting all high and mighty”.
Yet this bad publicity has had negligible effect on these firms. There have been no headlines of clients cancelling their contracts since the surge of focus on PR agencies’ ethics. One may ask whether clients should be comfortable - ethically - funding a company that works for clients that are morally questionable. Supplier selection is a key element for an effective corporate social responsibility strategy. Employees for such companies may well ask themselves whether they feel comfortable working on such accounts. No doubt many will relish playing the Prince or Princess of Darkness role.
Yet what many clients – especially controversial clients – really want is a firm who are happy to be morally ambiguous. While Bell Pottinger has suspended its contract in Bahrain due to a ‘three-month period of emergency rule’, it has announced plans to revisit the contract after this period. It'll be interesting to see whether the policies of whatever regime emerges after the three month period will have an impact on BM deciding to continue the work
If a lack of ethical behavior has become integral to successful PR businesses we have to question whether clients actually care. While a company may not condone the practices of a PR agency, as long as they get some good publicity - or their competitors get bad publicity in the Google-gate case - they may not be too worried about the means that produce their desired ends. As a result PR consultancies that are willing to cross ethical boundaries for a fee will continue to win the most lucrative contracts in the world.
The row over global PR companies cooperating with controversial foreign Governments has given these agencies free – and potentially extremely lucrative – publicity, because the truth is that controversial PR can be a goldmine for PR companies willing to take on ethically questionable clients.
“Google-gate” – in which Burson-Marsteller were hired by Facebook allegedly to pitch negative stories about Google to the US media – focused on Burson-Marsteller’s tactics to disparage the search and digital media company. The company has not stayed away from controversial clients previously, and allegedly worked with the Nigerian government after claims of genocide in the Nigerian Civil War and the Argentine junta following the disappearance of 35,000 civilians. Putting a positive spin on these types of issues is clearly not in the same stratosphere of PR as promoting the latest bronzer or lip gloss to Cosmo.
Burson-Marsteller isn’t the only agency to have taken on controversial clients. Bell Pottinger has been harshly criticised by protestors for its decision to work for the Bahrain government following the recent clashes between government forces and anti-regime demonstrators. The contract was previously held by Weber-Shandwick and is, according to PR Week, “understood to be worth a seven-figure sum annually.”
Television presenter and “renowned PR expert” Lauren Laverne laid into major PR companies on Channel 4’s damp squib of a satire show 10 O’Clock Live. Those bearing her brutal brunt included Bell Pottinger, Brown Lloyd James for its alleged work with Colonel Gadaffi, and Burson-Marsteller for its work in supposedly assisting a number of dictatorial regimes.
Lord Bell has defended his company, saying: “The implication that in some way my company and I damage the reputation of the industry is absurd,” adding that his company “abides by all the regulations of a public company.” Regarding the contract in Bahrain, he reiterated Bell Pottinger’s role: “We work for the Economic Development board. Whatever happens, the economy has got to grow. We're nothing to do with the constitution; we're nothing to do with Sunnis and Shiites.”
2011 has already thrown up some monumental news stories, not least the anti-regime uprisings in Northern Africa and the Middle East. With increasing calls for political reform, governments are more desperate than ever for some of the most skilled PR experts to protect their reputations, and to spin what has been called the “unspinnable”.
Google-gate merely served as a reminder of the nature of competitive business in the PR industry. Steve Earl, MD of Speed Communications, argued that the primary thing that Burson-Marsteller got wrong was its “amateur and clumsy” methods of smearing, suggesting the PR industry should just “admit” such practices “rather than getting all high and mighty”.
Yet this bad publicity has had negligible effect on these firms. There have been no headlines of clients cancelling their contracts since the surge of focus on PR agencies’ ethics. One may ask whether clients should be comfortable - ethically - funding a company that works for clients that are morally questionable. Supplier selection is a key element for an effective corporate social responsibility strategy. Employees for such companies may well ask themselves whether they feel comfortable working on such accounts. No doubt many will relish playing the Prince or Princess of Darkness role.
Yet what many clients – especially controversial clients – really want is a firm who are happy to be morally ambiguous. While Bell Pottinger has suspended its contract in Bahrain due to a ‘three-month period of emergency rule’, it has announced plans to revisit the contract after this period. It'll be interesting to see whether the policies of whatever regime emerges after the three month period will have an impact on BM deciding to continue the work
If a lack of ethical behavior has become integral to successful PR businesses we have to question whether clients actually care. While a company may not condone the practices of a PR agency, as long as they get some good publicity - or their competitors get bad publicity in the Google-gate case - they may not be too worried about the means that produce their desired ends. As a result PR consultancies that are willing to cross ethical boundaries for a fee will continue to win the most lucrative contracts in the world.
Friday 1 April 2011
Media in the media
At Parker Wayne and Kent we receive the FT daily email, and usually we give it an interested glance over before moving on to the working day. Not so today, and the coverage was so amazing that I just had to write about it. Of the many brilliant stories in the paper today none of them grab your attention like the news that 63 year old former governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger is working with Spiderman creator Stan Lee on a new comic book character called ‘The Governator’. Based on the former movie stars 7 years in office the character will be the centre of a childrens TV series next year, in which the Governator will be pitted against Gangsters Imposters Racketeers Liars and Irredeemable Ex-Cons (or Girlie Men).
Whether or not this is a wonderful April Fools Day prank, the internet is currently blazing with super hero news – whether the new Wonder Woman costume or casting announcements for Christopher Nolan’s the Dark Knight Rises – and Schwarzenegger demonstrates that he still knows how to take the media by storm. Earlier in the week Arnie met Prime Minister David Cameron at the 1922 committee to advise on the current Libyan situation. Schwarzenegger endorsed Prime Minister Camerons’ leadership and applauded his action saying that the government were doing: “A great job on Libya, a great job for Britain in making it live within its means and a great job with policies to protect the environment."
Media in Libya has also been at the forefront of the FT today, as the first uncensored broadcast in 42 years was transmitted over the recently renamed Free Libya Radio Station. This event coincides with journalists launching free newspapers that are being seen as increasingly valuable tools for the opposition against Gaddafi’s forces.
In Turkey, however, the escalating controversy surrounding the arrests of several journalists has highlighted a more worrying attitude toward a free media. The European Union and US State department joined the rising criticism over this latest PR nightmare for the Turkish government, as their record for a free press continues to worsen.
This issue hits closer to home as James Murdoch is promoted to Deputy Chief Operations Officer and into the New York office of media giant News Corp. This move that has caused bafflement over at the FT as it comes at a time when News Corps highly publicised and controversial acquisition of BSkyB is at a final and delicate stage, not to mention the continuing controversy over the News of the World phone hacking scandal. The ever expanding control over the media exhibited by News Corp has caused grave concern and strong opposition from those who insist that the media in this country must exhibit plurality. The final decision from UK Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt will be delivered after the parliamentary recess on April 26th.
Publicis have also announced plans for succession in which Jean Yves Naouri is taking over as Executive Chairman of Publicis Worldwide to become the successor of Maurice Levy. The agency has relied upon Naouris’ technological expertise to deal with companies like Microsoft and Google, and will now rely on him in this senior position to continue to push digital advertising into new innovative areas.
Googles’ recent announcement of a new social networking feature could bring a viral element to search advertising for the first time. As a fight back against Facebook – who overtook Google as the most visited site in the US last year – Google have created the +1 button. Similar to the Facebook ‘Like’ button users will be able to set personal preferences and appear in their friends search results, vastly increasing the potential benefits for marketers.
Digital marketing’s focus on social media has led to 96% of marketers planning to spend more of their budget on it according to a survey of members of the World Federation of Advertisers conducted by Millward Brown. Half of these are unsure of the returns however, and a further quarter even says payback is average or poor. The point here – as the FT highlights – is that those 96% of marketers are seeking consumer engagement, and yet simply having a social media presence doesn’t guarantee this. True engagement comes from using social media not as an end in and of itself, but as part of a broader marketing strategy. PepsiCo have set up a glass wall to monitor the social media on its product Gatorade. The screen shows every tweet, like, and mention, while being monitored by a team of five representatives each from a different part of the company, such as PR, customer service and branding. Gatorade Mission Control, as it is known, allows the company to understand “the heartbeat of the consumer.”
The news is increasingly dominated by stories about the way in which stories are told, and the varying methods by which those stories are reaching consumers. The FT focuses on these because the implications for business are enormous. A strong media presence is more important than ever, and – with huge PR companies having been the target of some bad PR themselves lately – it’s vital that companies are able to put their trust in an ethical practice that is able to deliver the ever-expanding and ever-more significant media needs of the modern business.
Whether or not this is a wonderful April Fools Day prank, the internet is currently blazing with super hero news – whether the new Wonder Woman costume or casting announcements for Christopher Nolan’s the Dark Knight Rises – and Schwarzenegger demonstrates that he still knows how to take the media by storm. Earlier in the week Arnie met Prime Minister David Cameron at the 1922 committee to advise on the current Libyan situation. Schwarzenegger endorsed Prime Minister Camerons’ leadership and applauded his action saying that the government were doing: “A great job on Libya, a great job for Britain in making it live within its means and a great job with policies to protect the environment."
Media in Libya has also been at the forefront of the FT today, as the first uncensored broadcast in 42 years was transmitted over the recently renamed Free Libya Radio Station. This event coincides with journalists launching free newspapers that are being seen as increasingly valuable tools for the opposition against Gaddafi’s forces.
In Turkey, however, the escalating controversy surrounding the arrests of several journalists has highlighted a more worrying attitude toward a free media. The European Union and US State department joined the rising criticism over this latest PR nightmare for the Turkish government, as their record for a free press continues to worsen.
This issue hits closer to home as James Murdoch is promoted to Deputy Chief Operations Officer and into the New York office of media giant News Corp. This move that has caused bafflement over at the FT as it comes at a time when News Corps highly publicised and controversial acquisition of BSkyB is at a final and delicate stage, not to mention the continuing controversy over the News of the World phone hacking scandal. The ever expanding control over the media exhibited by News Corp has caused grave concern and strong opposition from those who insist that the media in this country must exhibit plurality. The final decision from UK Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt will be delivered after the parliamentary recess on April 26th.
Publicis have also announced plans for succession in which Jean Yves Naouri is taking over as Executive Chairman of Publicis Worldwide to become the successor of Maurice Levy. The agency has relied upon Naouris’ technological expertise to deal with companies like Microsoft and Google, and will now rely on him in this senior position to continue to push digital advertising into new innovative areas.
Googles’ recent announcement of a new social networking feature could bring a viral element to search advertising for the first time. As a fight back against Facebook – who overtook Google as the most visited site in the US last year – Google have created the +1 button. Similar to the Facebook ‘Like’ button users will be able to set personal preferences and appear in their friends search results, vastly increasing the potential benefits for marketers.
Digital marketing’s focus on social media has led to 96% of marketers planning to spend more of their budget on it according to a survey of members of the World Federation of Advertisers conducted by Millward Brown. Half of these are unsure of the returns however, and a further quarter even says payback is average or poor. The point here – as the FT highlights – is that those 96% of marketers are seeking consumer engagement, and yet simply having a social media presence doesn’t guarantee this. True engagement comes from using social media not as an end in and of itself, but as part of a broader marketing strategy. PepsiCo have set up a glass wall to monitor the social media on its product Gatorade. The screen shows every tweet, like, and mention, while being monitored by a team of five representatives each from a different part of the company, such as PR, customer service and branding. Gatorade Mission Control, as it is known, allows the company to understand “the heartbeat of the consumer.”
The news is increasingly dominated by stories about the way in which stories are told, and the varying methods by which those stories are reaching consumers. The FT focuses on these because the implications for business are enormous. A strong media presence is more important than ever, and – with huge PR companies having been the target of some bad PR themselves lately – it’s vital that companies are able to put their trust in an ethical practice that is able to deliver the ever-expanding and ever-more significant media needs of the modern business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)