Mediaboss Marketing

Crain's Chicago Business

A power struggle emerges within Tribune parent's boardroom Crain's Chicago Business A major rift has emerged on the board of the company that owns the second-biggest U.S. newspaper chain, and a battle for control could be brewing. The media company Tronc, formerly known as Tribune Publishing, controlled by Chairman Michael Ferro, ...

Visit link:
A power struggle emerges within Tribune parent's boardroom - Crain's Chicago Business

Google has been summoned to the Cabinet Office over adverts from several big organisations appearing next to inappropriate material. Photograph: Virginia Mayo/AP

A French advertising group that has clients including O2, EDF and Royal Mail has become the first of the major global marketing companies to pull all its ad spend from Google and YouTube.

Havas, the worlds sixth largest marketing services group, spends about 175m on digital advertising on behalf of clients in the UK annually.

The firm said it had taken the step after talks with Google had broken down because the tech company had been unable to provide specific reassurances, policy and guarantees that their video or display content is classified either quickly enough or with the correct filters.

It comes after Google was forced to review its ad policies when the UK government joined a number of organisations, including the Guardian, BBC and Transport for London, in pulling advertising from Google and YouTube. Google has been summoned to the Cabinet Office.

Havas UK spends about 500m on all forms of advertising a year and has clients including Dominos, Emirates and the BBC. It said that the black list applies to all YouTube and digital display advertising on Googles network.

We have a duty of care to our clients in the UK marketplace to position their brands in the right context where we can be assured that that environment is safe, regulated to the degree necessary and additive to their brands objectives, said Paul Frampton, Havas UK chief executive and country manager.

Our position will remain until we are confident in the YouTube platform and Google Display Networks ability to deliver the standards we and our clients expect.

Sir Martin Sorrell, chief executive of the worlds largest marketing services group WPP, was critical of Google but fell short of blacklisting the company from its UK advertising schedule.

We have always said Google, Facebook and others are media companies and have the same responsibilities as any other media company, said Sorrell. They cannot masquerade as technology companies, particularly when they place advertisements.

In a growing crisis for the tech giant, members of the Commons home affairs select committee wrote to Google to express disappointment that the government and major brands were still being placed alongside inappropriate content.

In its letter, the committee, chaired by Yvette Cooper, demanded that Google refund organisations whose adverts appeared linked to offensive videos.

Ronan Harris, managing director of Google UK, said: Weve begun a thorough review of our ads policies and brand controls, and we will be making changes in the coming weeks to give brands more control over where their ads appear across YouTube and the Google Display Network.

Harris said last year Google removed nearly 2bn bad ads from its systems, removed over 100,000 publishers from its AdSense programme and prevented ads from serving on over 300m YouTube videos.

The inappropriate content included YouTube videos of American white nationalists, a hate preacher banned in the UK and a controversial Islamist preacher.

Ads for the Guardians membership scheme are understood to have been placed alongside a range of extremist material after an agency acting on the media groups behalf used Googles AdX ad exchange, which uses programmatic trading.

The use of programmatic trading, which automates the process of buying and selling advertising online, is increasingly controversial, raising concerns that it both hurts media revenues and supports extremist material.

Media owners such as YouTube and many thousands of other publishers make their advertising slots available within the programmatic system for advertisers to bid on. This process is handled through digital trading desks used by media agencies, which plan, book and execute campaigns on behalf of their advertising clients.

These connect with exchanges such as AdX, which is owned by Google, to in turn run ads around media such as videos on YouTube. Google also delivers ads to many other third-party sites.

An investigation by the Times claimed that as well as taxpayer-funded ads from the government, ads from several media and retail companies including Channel 4, the BBC, Argos and LOral also appeared alongside extremist content on Google and YouTube.

A government spokeswoman said: Digital advertising is a cost-effective way for the government to engage millions of people in vital campaigns such as military recruitment and blood donation.

Google is responsible for ensuring the high standards applied to government advertising are adhered to and that adverts do not appear alongside inappropriate content. We have placed a temporary restriction on our YouTube advertising pending reassurances from Google that government messages can be delivered in a safe and appropriate way.

Google has been summoned for discussions at the Cabinet Office to explain how it will deliver the high quality of service government demands on behalf of the taxpayer.

Phil Smith, director general of Isba, which has some 450 members, called for changes to Googles advertising policies.

More needs to be done now to protect the reputation of responsible advertisers on digital platforms, he said. Isba urges Google immediately to review its policies and controls on the placement of advertising and to raise the bar to eliminate the risk of brands being damaged by inappropriate context.

Whatever Googles editorial policy, advertising should only be sold against content that is safe for brands. Isba would further encourage Google to withdraw immediately from sale any advertising inventory which it cannot guarantee as a safe environment for advertising, to restore advertiser confidence and to allow a thorough review of systems, processes and controls to take place.

Isba suggested that Google should review placing ads immediately against newly uploaded YouTube content before it has been classified. Google should ensure that content is quarantined until properly categorised, Smith said.

Dan Brooke, Channel 4s chief marketing and communications officer, said the company was extremely concerned about its advertising being put alongside offensive material on YouTube.

It is a direct contravention of assurances our media-buying agency had received on our behalf from YouTube, he added. As we are not satisfied that YouTube is currently a safe environment, we have removed all Channel 4 advertising from the platform with immediate effect.

David Pemsel, the Guardians chief executive, wrote to Google to say it was unacceptable for its advertising to be misused in this way and the media group would be withdrawing its advertising until Google could provide guarantees that this ad misplacement via Google and YouTube will not happen in the future.

In a week which saw increasing political pressure on tech firms, representatives from Google, Twitter and Facebook were hauled in front of department of Culture, Media and Sport on Tuesday morning.

In a meeting at the department, they faced hard questions from Matt Hancock, the minister for digital and culture policy, over claims that they were not doing enough to curb the spread of fake news. The DCMS select committee is currently investigating the matter.

In the afternoon they then faced a further battering from the home affairs select committee, which accused them of commercial prostitution for failing to stem a flood of hate speech and extremist propaganda on their platform.

In a letter to Google, the committee also expressed shock that videos by banned far-right group National Action still appeared online despite heated exchanges between MPs and tech companies earlier this week.

See the original post here:
French advertising giant pulls out of Google and YouTube - The Guardian

No one man should be this powerful

Rupert Murdochs appetite for media outlets resembles that of Wile E Coyote for a tasty Roadrunner.

And if the dirty digger is thwarted in his efforts say, by a hacking scandal that closes one of his newspapers and lands an editor in jail hes nothing if not persistent.

Murdoch already owns a huge chunk of the UK media across several platforms, and would therefore be a threat to media freedom even without the criminal behaviour of his underlings.

His renewed lunge for total control of Sky, handing him the 61 per cent he doesnt already own, would swallow up yet more of the market share for his particular brand of newsfotainment.

Culture Secretary Karen Bradleys decision today to refer the proposed 21st Century Fox/Sky merger to broadcast regulator Ofcom ought never to have been in doubt.

But given the intimate relations between the British political class and especially this government, the stench of corruption had to be overcome by a sustained campaign by Britains trade unions.

In a letter to Bradley on March 8 after her call for representations on the proposed merger, the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) made the case for referall to Ofcom, arguing further media concentration, especially in the hands of a dodgy corporation, is not in the public interest.

The NUJ has also been working with the Trades Union Congress and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) to lobby the EU Commissions probe of the deal.

In a statement today, released ahead of Bradleys decision, NUJ acting General Secretary Seamus Dooley said:

The need for media plurality is recognised in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and in that context the European Commission has a direct role in examining the proposed merger. []

We must ensure that at national and European levels every effort is made to halt the onward march of the Murdochs.

If this sounds a bit grand, consider the stakes. If Murdoch gets his way, the 21st Century Fox corporation would, in the words of the NUJ letter, directly control the dominant commercial news producers in the UK across television, radio and print.

Heres some more evidence from its statement today:

Sky and NewsCorp are already the biggest commercial news producers in the UK. Sky News Radio is the main news supplier to more than 280 commercial stations.

Skys only real competitor in radio news production is the BBC. In television, there are now only two UK-based 24-hour TV news channels Sky News and the BBC News Channel.

The proposed merger would make Murdochs company Britains largest newspaper provider, and bring together Britains monopoly satellite platform and its largest broadcaster by revenue.

This would hand Murdoch an unprecedented amount of power, and for this reason alone would be a scandal regardless of the mans policies, business interests or indirect criminal practices.

One hopes the Ofcom probe makes the right call based on the evidence, given the regulators sometimes odd rulings.Butmight it not be time to review our monopoly laws, so that no company can dominate any industry and make nonsense of the idea of a free market?

Reducing the maximum percentage market share would force Murdoch to break up and sell of his media empire, creating space for new outlets and easing the pressure on existing ones. This might have more impact than continued calls for press regulation by a government-backed committee.

In the meantime, we might reflect on the words of IFJ General Secretary Anthony Bellanger, ahead of Bradleys decision:

Media plurality is a cornerstone of democracy. Without it, all the talk of a free and independent media is nothing but empty words.

Adam Barnett is staff writer for Left Foot Forward. Follow him on Twitter@AdamBarnett13

Read more here:
Rupert Murdoch wants to control the news. Ofcom must stand up for media freedom - Left Foot Forward

The minister of state security, David Mahlobo, is apparently advocating forthe regulation of social media, which would replace the free space for expression with bureaucratic surveillance.

This alarming scenario reflects a tension between privacy and security around the world, not just in South Africa. But theres more.

Mahlobos proposal is part of the ruling ANCs broad strategy to control the media, if its policies on media from Sundays briefing session in preparation for the partys June policy conference are anything to go by.

It wants to step up its inquiry into a media appeals tribunal, which it first mooted in Polokwane in 2007, before the conference.

The ANC also wants a media charter to transform the hostile media.

The mainstream media is out of sync with the rest of country, the ANC has claimed in most of its policy statements on communications. The assumption is the ANC is in sync with the country. This is a regular mistake the ruling party makes as it conflates the country, its people and the party.

Now social media is out of sync with the ruling party. The default position is to regulate it and use fake news as the excuse.

The reality is no one knows what to do about fake news. But to regulate the internet and social media would be overreach and inconsistent with the noise and robust contestations that characterise a democracy.

Facebook and Twitter, the two most used social media in South Africa, allow free expression (albeit only for those who have internet access). They are also mediums that allow expression to those who do not have access to mainstream media.

Of course social media is open to abuse in the age of fake news disinformation, propaganda, lies, rumour which has been around forever, but now is a full-scale industry. Take ANN7, for instance, which watches everything mainstream media does and then says and does the opposite its a bit like trying to turn diamonds into pistachio nuts.

The state security ministers reasoning about social media is part of the ANCs general trajectory a desire to control news and self-expression so it can win better majorities during elections.

It works in tandem with other controlling proposals: the Protection of State Information Bill (better known as the secrecy Bill), the media appeals tribunal, the Film and Publications Act and the Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Amendment Bill.

Aspects of all of the above are unconstitutional and this is the most likely reason that, in the main, they have not completely fulfilled the governments desire.

So thats politics and legalities. In practical terms, social media is too large a space to regulate. WhatsApp, Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook posts and tweets go off faster than the rate government can keep up with constitutional rulings against it. The odd random racist will get caught and it wont stop someone else from mouthing off disgusting views.

What is the value of leaving social media as is? What do people talk about or share on their various social media platforms? A lot of narcissist nonsense for much of the time, granted, such as pics of sublime holidays to show how happy they are, pics of kissing their partners in romantic locations, showing off their bodies rippling muscles and six packs and odd poses with puckered lips.

But there is more: its an outlet for activism, a diversity of voices, a space to rage about corruption in the public and private sector, and a lack of humanity.

Social media is used to rail against public officials who dont do their jobs but increase their salaries, the state of hospitals, the poor delivery of textbooks and rising unemployment. We see arguments between people and groups that hold different views, such as black and white feminists about questions of whats universal and whats particular.

Social media is also used as info-sharing: a talk happening at a university, for example, and which area does not have water and electricity and when it will come on again. Even in China and Zimbabwe, two countries that regulate media, including social media, people find a way to share information. So the government would be wasting its time.

On the light side, through social media you can flirt with someone and you can overuse emoticons if you like, especially the laughing till you are crying one which is very popular in South Africa for some reason. It can be fun and serious as we try to balance security and privacy in a world of violence, racism, sexism, poverty, climate change, inhumanity.

All of this has value. Its so clear that this space should not be regulated.

But its also clear only those who feel threatened and insecure would want to regulate it.

Glenda Daniels is a senior lecturer in media studies at the University of the Witwatersrand.

Read the original:
ANC's desire to control social media is simply undemocratic - Mail & Guardian

The controversial legislation is being delayed and probably wont reach the Knesset in its current session.

Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon will oppose Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus proposed legislation aimed at ensuring political control over Israels broadcast media unless changes are made to it, treasury sources said on Tuesday.

Kahlon has been the main obstacle to Netanyahus repeated efforts to wrest control of the new public broadcasting corporation, Kan, or kill it off altogether and keep alive the Israel Broadcasting Authority, which is now responsible for the states network of television and radio stations.

Netanyahu reportedly fears that the news division of Kan, which is due to go on the air at the end of this month, will oppose him and his policies. If he cant block it altogether, the prime minster is determined to exercise control over it.

I committed to ensuring freedom of expression and freedom of the press. There will be no subordination to politics. Supervision will be profession and not political, Kahlon told a conference sponsored by the Calalcist financial daily on Tuesday.

Kahlon told Army Radio earlier in the day that the current formulation of the legislation is unacceptable and that his Kulanu Party the second largest in the coalition would work to amend it. I dont think you can silence journalists; they have Facebook and Twitter, he said.

Shlomo Filber, the Communications Ministry director general and Netanyahu ally who formulated the legislation, ran into opposition from treasury officials and from Assistant Attorney General Avi Licht at a meeting two weeks ago, where a draft was presented for the first time.

Sources said Licht, who was responsible for writing legislation on communications in his previous job and still carries weight on the matter, expressed serious objections to the way the draft bill would allow elected officials to interfere in public broadcasting.

As a result, the legislation is being revised and probably wont be brought up for discussion in the cabinet or ministerial committees any time soon and it most likely wont be submitted to the Knesset during its current session.

Under the bill, whose terms were revealed by TheMarker last week, the communications minister would appoint a single supervisory body for all public and commercial broadcasters, including Kan and Army Radio.

It chairman and director general would be appointed by the communications minister without any input from an appointments committee or other outsiders. According to the draft, two of the other 10 members of the new authoritys board would be appointed by the communications and culture ministers, and the rest by a search committee.

Other elements of the bill aim to increase competition in broadcast media by enabling new players to enter. They would not have to meet any content requirements.

Treasury sources said they were opposed to the parts of the bill that politicize broadcast regulation.

Although Finance Minster Director General Shai Babad and Asi Messing, the treasurys legal adviser, were involved in the early stages, Filber demanded that no one from the budget division participate in the discussion.

Want to enjoy 'Zen' reading - with no ads and just the article? Subscribe today

Read more:
Israeli Fnance Minister Comes Out Against Bill That Puts Broadcast Media Under Political Control - Haaretz