Mediaboss Marketing

OPINION Local messages require a high level of interest before ever becoming national news stories by Carly Mulvihill | Mar 27 2017 | 13 hours ago | Updated 14 hours ago

Last week, The Cavalier Dailys Editorial Board argued in favor of social media as a way to make causes visible for social activism. The board asserted that social media expediently disseminates information and effectively unites people for a single cause. This argument is valid, but the board greatly overestimates the impact of social media as a singular tool for change. Though it is a tool that can bring citizens together, it is not an omnipresent way to automatically start a social movement. Additionally, the board championed social media as a way to turn local news into global news. By presenting an overly broad argument about the effects of social media on activist movements, the board undercut the complexity of activist movements and overestimated the ability of the average person to make change using social media.

The assertion that social media can turn local news into global stories, while valid, is grossly overestimated. Social media websites can reach large groups of people particularly when posts are actively spread but they can also be a wasteland where interesting news and important issues are hidden amongst memes and cat videos. Social media is also rendered ineffective without active users sharing posts from person to person. Though the platforms represent a way for citizens to assert their beliefs and advertise for events, movements can be stunted before they get off the ground if they do not inspire immediate interest from users. One of the biggest misconceptions about social media platforms is that they reach all users around the world and are the easiest way to unite all citizens for social movements.

The board uses recent social protests in the Charlottesville community as evidence of social medias influence, but they ignore the relatively small scope of that success. Given the connections between University students and Charlottesville residents including news organizations, social media platforms and social groups social media platforms do not represent the sole method of organizing. Additionally, though this example demonstrates the positive effects of social media on protesting and activism, the success is contained in a very small area. The organizing power in a small community is certainly commendable but, on a national or international scale, social media is not always as effective as the board asserts.

Social media sites have been given credit for much of the success of the Arab Spring revolutions in the Middle East but, in truth, few of the citizens of these countries had access to social media platforms. In Western countries, there is often an assumption that social media sites are as widely available around the world as they are in the United States and Europe, but in countries with repressive governmental structures, social media platforms are frequently either banned or out of reach to citizens financially. In an interview with protesters years after the Tahrir Square demonstrations in Egypt, most cited community groups and mosques as major organizing vehicles for the demonstrations, rather than social media sites. Average citizens did not have the connections to social media which Americans believe they did.

Additionally, social media activism has given rise to the hashtag activism movement, which falls prey to many of the same issues plaguing generic social media activism. Hashtags do represent a uniting factor and a method through which people can communicate with others who have similar interests, but as some activists have noted, nothing is accomplished with just a hashtag. The hashtag must be powerful enough to mobilize large groups of people and, without other resources, it can be difficult to make change. The influence of social media relies heavily on the existence of outside organizational factors, which are ignored by the board. Change does not come with a single keystroke.

Based on the Editorial Boards argument, it seems any college student could start a social movement through the use of social media. Ultimately, though, social media platforms have little reach without preexisting networks of motivated people who want to make change. Especially in countries where repressive governments control media systems, social media lacks the impact which Western leaders assert it has. Furthermore, without a high initial level of interest, local messages can never become international news stories. Social media platforms represent a tool for people to create change but the change is highly overestimated. Though these platforms are a simple way to transmit messages, the ability to reach large, diverse audiences is limited and many more tools are needed to create a successful social movement.

Carly Mulvihill is the Senior Associate Opinion Editor for The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at c.mulvihill@cavalierdaily.com.

Read more from the original source:
MULVIHILL: The reality of social media activism - University of Virginia The Cavalier Daily

The Russian state employs both hard and soft power to further its grip on the countrys media, Photograph: Denis Sinyakov/AFP/Getty Images

Vladimir Putin perfectly understood the power of the media that helped propel his famously unpopular predecessor Boris Yeltsin into power in 1996. So the first thing he did after assuming the presidency in 2000 was to force all the major TV channels still the most powerful medium in the country to submit to his will. Oligarch owners were either co-opted, jailed or exiled, and by 2006 most major Russian media were either directly or indirectly under Putins administrations control.

Today, the three major Russian TV channels are either directly owned by the state, operating as state enterprises (Channel One and VGTRK, or All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company), or owned by a subsidiary of one of Russias largest oil and gas companies, Gazprom (NTV). So are two of Russias three major news agencies, Rossiya Segodnya and Tass. Later, larger independent online news outlets such as Lenta.ru were subjected to hostile takeovers by loyalist editorial teams picked by the Kremlin.

Members of Putins administration today its his deputy chief of staff Alexey Gromov control the political coverage and decide both what foreign and domestic policies are to be covered, and how and, more importantly, what is not to be covered. For example, Putins family is strictly off-limits, unless specifically instructed otherwise. This often leads to awkward moments, as when Putin casually dropped the bomb of his divorce on national TV while tactically cornered by a TV crew after an opera he went to see with his now ex-wife Lyudmila.

The editors-in-chief of all the major media in Russia attend regular strategy meetings with Putins staffers. Its like Fight Club: no member will admit to its existence but its fairly easy to deduce, given how coordinated the coverage is on the most watched TV shows across all three major news channels.

Putin and his loyal staffers take a keen interest in the foreign press. His administration subscribes to all the major Russian newspapers and magazines, including the few remaining independent ones (independent here is a bit of a misnomer: they are, of course, dependent on the states benevolence, which can change at any moment), and the most important foreign ones, both general interest, such as the Economist, and specialised, such as Janes Defence Weekly. These reports are digested by clerks and submitted to their superiors as daily bulletins.

These folders of foreign newspaper and magazine clippings with bookmarks in red for negative coverage of Russia, yellow for neutral and green for positive were a major source of anxiety for Putins office in mid-2000s. A sea of red or yellow, and Putins press managers were concerned about Russias international standing. There was a gap in communication between Russias top officials and the international press, they feared, not unreasonably, and one remedy they could think of was employing foreign public relations professionals to help fix it.

The strategy didnt quite work out as intended, due to a fundamental lack of understanding of how the press operates outside of Russia. Angus Roxburgh, a former BBC correspondent who later was employed by Ketchum as a PR adviser to the Russian government, writes in his book The Strongman: Vladimir Putin and the Struggle for Russia, that his employers thought it was only a matter of greasing the right palms to get the coverage they wanted.

Tens of millions of dollars and a major mutual disappointment later, the Kremlin refused to renew the Ketchum contract in late 2014. Today, Putin and his press managers still seem to think that the worlds media works the same way as it does in Russia: subservient to corporate owners who are in turn controlled by governments. Hence the angry demands from Russias top officials that the western media apparently a centrally controlled editorial conglomerate cease their Russophobic campaigning.

In their minds, reporters working for state news outlets which effectively are almost all news outlets in Russia are public servants first and journalists second (if at all). In September 2013, at the height of a highly contested mayoral election campaign in Moscow, a state news agency RIA Novosti, later integrated into Rossiya Segodnya, tried to do some old-fashioned balanced reporting on all candidates. The problem was that one of those candidates (a solid favourite of the liberal-minded Muscovites who came second, almost forcing a runoff against the incumbent mayor appointed by Putin) was a firebrand opposition activist, Alexei Navalny, backed then blacklisted from the state media.

Even critical outlets end up promoting the Kremlins line by reporting what is essentially non-news

Whenever RIA would quote Navalnys statements in its campaign news reports, as any normal news outlet would do when covering a political campaign, Putins deputy chief of staff Alexei Gromov would call the agencys editor in chief, Svetlana Mironyuk, and chide her. A state news agency, Gromov said, must not work against the states own interests by promoting the opposition.

Today, the Russian state employs both hard and soft power to further its grip on the countrys media. New restrictive laws are passed with dispiriting predictability: foreign media franchise owners are forced out of their stakes in international brands such as Forbes or Esquire based in Russia, fines and other penalties are introduced for not covering controversial subjects such as terrorism and drug abuse in terms that do not explicitly discourage the behaviour. Independent outlets are threatened into self-censorship and choked of the things they need to survive such as cable services or access to print shops if they dont comply.

Not all is universally grim, of course. Outside Moscow, there are brave news websites critically covering local affairs, to the chagrin of provincial governors. And new, highly specialised outlets are covering subjects such as charity work or courts and prisons in depth that the general interest media cannot afford.

Media in Russia exists not only under state pressure, but with the constraints of an industry that is facing the same challenges worldwide: the ever-accelerating race for more pageviews against the diminishing attention span of their audiences, dwindling budgets and ad revenues. And this in turn opens up more possibilities to manipulate coverage through more conventional means, such as access bias.

Every year in December Putin holds an annual press conference for domestic and international press. These are massively publicised, tightly choreographed affairs attended by hundreds of reporters, from small regional outlets to international media conglomerates. No matter what your editorial line on Putin is, you are compelled to cover these news conferences in order to not lose out on web traffic although there is precious little news to cover. No major policy announcements are made at these events, and Putin has a whole bag of rhetorical tricks to evade and deflect critical inquiries, using loyalist media asking softball questions to appear an omniscient and wise ruler.

Putins office has become expert at manipulating the agenda. Bits of trivial information are spoonfed to reporters through informed sources familiar with the matter and even critical outlets end up promoting the Kremlins line by reporting what is essentially non-news.

There are, of course, many lessons to be learned and many parallels to draw with the current fraught relationship between Donald Trump and the US media. But its important to keep in mind that Putin has amassed far more power than Trump can possibly hope to during his time in power. However, one thing is clear: both in the US and in Russia, the media are often distracted with outrage over absurd behaviour and nonsensical public statements while ignoring what those in power want to be ignored.

Go here to see the original:
In Putin's Russia, the hollowed-out media mirrors the state | Alexey ... - The Guardian

YouTube Responds to Advertiser Pullout, Offers Stronger Controls

It's been a challenging week for the leading online video destination, as hundreds of advertisers have pulled ads after learning they supported hate videos.

Page 1

The YouTube NewFront is one of the can't-miss events of New York City's NewFront Season. While most newfronts highlight upcoming original content for advertisers, YouTube's over-the-top events are pure pep rally designed to showcase the site's unmatchable reach in every demographic.

The news from this past week, however, has probably left YouTube's event planners scrambling for direction. Several global brandsincluding Walmart, Starbucks, Pepsi, General Motors, Johnson & Johnson, Dish, Verizon, and AT&Thave pulled their ads from YouTube over concerns they were appearing on videos that promoted hate speech and terrorism. Over 250 advertisers have joined the boycott.

YouTube's crisis began on February 9th, when The Times of London ran a story showing how major households brandssuch as Mercedes-Benz, Waitrose, and Marie Curieappeared on videos for hate groups, helping them gain funding. The fallout has been bad enough that analysts have downgraded Google's stock.

YouTube sprang into action this week, promising policies that make it harder for hate speech creators to monetize their work, advertiser controls that give brands more say over where their ads appear, and a faster appeals process for creators whose works have been "demonetized."

"We know advertisers don't want their ads next to content that doesnt align with their values. So starting today, were taking a tougher stance on hateful, offensive, and derogatory content," wrote Philipp Schindler, Google's chief business officer, in a blog post.

If this wasn't enough of an internal crisis for YouTube, it also had to address an issue where its optional Restricted Mode excluded some LGBTQ videos.

While some in the ad industry have supported YouTube, pointing out that advertisers already have control over where their ads appear, the episode is certain to cast a cloud over YouTube's May 4th NewFront event. It's also certain to be a top item during Television upfronts in April and May, where broadcasters will certainly emphasize that they insure brand safety more than online channels do. While advertisers have recently been shifting broadcast budgets to online video channels, this could slow or even reverse that trend.

Page 1

Related Articles

While most viewers don't yet have a TV that can display high dynamic range content, YouTube is taking an early position in supporting the rich color technology.

Previously only available to select creators, YouTube's mobile live streaming is now an option for anyone with 10,000 subscribers.

While channel selection is limited, the unlimited cloud DVR helps make up for it. Look for the $35 monthly service to debut this spring.

Visit link:
YouTube Responds to Advertiser Pullout, Offers Stronger Controls - StreamingMedia.com

Mission Control Media has hired producer and development executive Brent Burnette as the new vice president of development,Variety has learned.

In his new role at Mission Control Media, the production company behind unscripted series likeHollywood Game Night and Face Off,Burnette will be tasked with creating and developing original formats in addition to forging new creative and talent partnerships, with a focus on comedy and digital.He will report to MCMs senior vice president of development Nicholas Oakley-Tilley as well as co-presidents Michael Agbabian and Dwight D. Smith.

Brent brings a rich background as both a veteran developer and a skilled executor that complements our existing team incredibly well, Smith said. We are thrilled to have him join us at Mission Control and look forward to creating great content together.

I am so excited for the opportunity to work with the Mission Control team and am looking forward to helping them expand their slate of projects Burnette added.

Most recently, Burnette served as head of development for Wanda Sykes production company, Push It Productions. Previously, heheld vice presidentpositions at Magilla Entertainment and Zodiak NY and also served as thedirector of programming for the New York Television Festival. His producer credits include unscripted series such as Undercover Boss, Wife Swap, What Not To Wear, and Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?

In addition to Hollywood Game Night and Face Off, Mission Control Media also produces Planet of the Apps with Gwyneth Paltrow, Jessica Alba and will.i.amfor Apple andCelebrity Food Fight hosted by Andy Richter for the Food Network among many other shows.

Read more from the original source:
Mission Control Media Names Brent Burnette VP of Development - Variety

Alabama coach Nick Saban won't be going to a conservative approach on offense next season. He made that pretty clear when a reporter suggested as much after the Crimson Tide's first spring practice Tuesday.

"I don't know where you came up with where we go to ball control," Saban said. "That's not what we do. The New England Patriots threw the ball over 60-something percent of the time, which is more than we threw it. So, where does that assumption come from or do you do what everybody else in the media does -- create some s--- and throw it on the wall and see what sticks, which is what I see happening everywhere? And the people who scream the loudest kind of get the attention and then we pass some rule that everybody has to live with or some law and the consequences mess up a lot of other things. Do it all the time. We're doing it right now."

He added later: "Where did that come from? I never said that, nobody in this building ever said that, so where'd you come up with that? Just had a dream about it, or what?"

Not much is known yet about what Alabama's offense will look like under new coordinator Brian Daboll, but he has learned some of Tide's prior scheme.

The Crimson Tide had a 10-point lead in the second half of the national title game in January before ultimately falling to Clemson 35-31. In that game, the Tigers had a nine-minute advantage in time of possession. Since then, Saban has hired new offensive coordinator Brian Daboll, who spent the past four seasons on Bill Belichick's staff with the Patriots.

Saban said a lack of execution was to blame for the loss to Clemson.

"We didn't block them," Saban said. "We didn't execute very well. We didn't throw the ball accurately when we had open people and a couple of times we dropped it. I think it was more a lack of execution than it was something schematically that we were doing. ...

"If we had caught some passes in the national championship game -- we had some guys open -- we wouldn't have had to control the ball. We would have scored more touchdowns."

During his rant, Saban seemed quite displeased with new NCAA rules about high school camps.

"And we pass some rule that everybody has to live with, or some law, where the consequences mess up a lot of other things. We do it all the time. We're doing it right now. The NCAA is doing it. We're going to change the way we have summer camps. We can't have high school coaches working summer camps. I mean, it's the most ridiculous thing that I've ever seen. It is what it is and whatever they do, they do.

"So we say we don't want third-parties dealing with players. So we're not going to let the high school coach bring a guy to camp, but some third-party guy can bring him to camp now. Makes no sense at all. But all the people who have common sense, they don't say anything about it. But the people who scream the loudest will get the thing changed and it'll mess everything up. That's the way it goes. The way it goes in the world, politics, just the way it goes."

View post:
Nick Saban: Running a ball-control offense is 'not what we do' - ESPN