Mediaboss Marketing

Roger Ebert attends a Blackberry Loves Mavericks cocktail reception during the Toronto International Film Festival in Toronto. (Evan Agostini/Associated Press)

Roger Ebert was a fixture each September at the Toronto International Film Festival, and when word of his death broke Thursday, devastated festival-goers, officials and movie directors in the city took a moment to give a final thumbs up to the famed critic.

"Movies are human documents. They show us our soul. Roger Ebert taught me that. Rest in peace." Cameron Bailey, artistic director for TIFF, wrote on Twitter.

"No one loved movies more than Roger Ebert, to whom many filmmakers and some film festivals, principally Toronto, owe a great deal for his early enthusiastic and constantly loyal support," Helga Stephenson, chief executive officer of the Academy of Canadian Cinema & Television, said in an email to The Canadian Press.

"Unbelievably prolific, Roger was a brilliant critic, an unabashed booster of his favourite films and talent, and a kid in the candy store all at the same time," continued Stephenson, a former head of the Toronto film festival.

"World cinema has lost its best friend."

Ebert attended the festival from its early days until recent years, when he could no longer speak after having his jaw removed from cancer surgery. He was often accompanied at press conferences by his wife Chaz.

"He put Toronto on the map," wrote Twitter user @polyergos.

"Roger Ebert loved coming to the Toronto film fest and we loved having him. He will be missed for this among many many reasons," added Twitter user @blm849.

Said captainpearson: "1 thing folks around here should remember about Roger Ebert is that he was a great promoter of the Toronto Film Festival and Toronto itself."

Continue reading here:
Roger Ebert mourned by Toronto International Film Festival

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., April 5, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Love word games? Tired of waiting on your friends? String Theory: a Word Game challenges players to spell as many words as they can before time runs out. String Theory: a Word Game, created by Gecko LLC, is available for preview for all iOS devices now, and will be available worldwide in the App Store on April 30, 2013.

(Photo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20130405/AQ89450)

Players spell words on the game board using letters in order from the letter deck. Each time the string makes a complete pass across the board, all the words spelled during that pass get scored and cleared from the board. Players get a limited number of passes of the string with which to spell words, but can earn more during game play by activating specials.

Feature Highlights: * Unique mix of Word Play and Action * Enhanced dictionary includes over 170,000 words * Four Unique Game Play Modes * Fast Paced and Exciting * 18 Different Specials - earn Extra Points! * Share with Facebook, Twitter, and E-Mail

String Theory: a Word Game is available now as a preview on TestFlight: http://tflig.ht/VpDP0w. String Theory will be available in the App Store Worldwide on April 30, 2013 for an introductory price of $0.99 in the US and is priced accordingly in other regions.

Please visit http://www.southwestgecko.com/StringTheory for more String Theory: a Word Game information, including videos and screenshots of the app. A press kit is available at http://www.southwestgecko.com/Press

String Theory: a Word Game is developed by Gecko LLC, a mobile app company founded in 2012.

If you would like further information on String Theory: a Word Game or Gecko LLC, or you would like to schedule an interview, please contact: Erik Erben Phone: (719) 425-9745 Email: erik southwestgecko com

String Theory: a Word Game is available now as a preview via TestFlight: http://tflig.ht/VpDP0w

Excerpt from:
'String Theory: a Word Game' for iOS Preview Available Now

Posted April 05, 2013

Mark Emmert didnt shy away from confronting reporters at Thursdays Final Four press conference. (David J. Phillip/AP)

ATLANTA There probably were valid points buried somewhere in NCAA president Mark Emmerts 16-minute, over 2,500-word opening statement/monologue/filibuster here at the annual Final Four press conference, but the biggest takeaway from the 45-minute session was the embattled presidents aggressive defensiveness.

On three occasions during the question-and-answer portion of the event, Emmert took various levels of shots at national reporters, saving his choicest barbs for CBSSports.coms Dennis Dodd, who has written previously calling for Emmerts job. In the middle of responding to a question from Dodd about whether Emmert feels like a lightning rod for criticism of the NCAA, Emmert interjected By the way, thanks for the career advice. [I] kept my job anyway. Oddly, that retort was edited out of the official transcript released afterward.

Later he got into it a bit with New York Times reporter Joe Nocera, who asked a question about Emmerts acceptance of general studies majors and questionable course plans. In the middle of a lengthy response, apparently in response to Nocera trying to follow up with a question, Emmert interjected Please let me finish, Joe. I know you disagree. We all know you disagree with me. .., before finishing his answer.

He finished his performance, though, by proverbially dropping the mic, blurting to Dodd as he walked off the stage after the final question,Im still here. I know youre disappointed, but here I am.

It was clear from the outset that the jacket-less Emmert had a plan for the presser, and that he clearly reads the critiques of his performance, not only as NCAA president but also in his prior stops at universities. It was feisty, but in an oddly defensive way that didnt make him come off as very much of a leader.

Like anyone in charge, Emmert (and the NCAA) get a lot more attention for what theyre doing wrong than what they did correctly, and an enormous amount of attention is placed on colleges two major revenue sports when the NCAA organizes several dozen sports across more than 1,000 colleges and universities at three different levels. Its also clear reporters were here today to ask tough and, in some cases, impossible to answer questions.

But the disastrous investigative failures in the UCLA and Miami cases are meaningful and relevant as more and more discussion swirls about NCAA reform. Emmert needed a strong performance in front of the national media and didnt deliver it.

The best summation may have come from Harvard senior @JohnEzekowitz via Twitter.

Read more:
Embattled Emmert gets testy in press conference

As of last Tuesday, there is no such thing as an illegal human being in United States. At least, that is, according to the Associated Press.

On April 2, the organization, widely considered the oldest and largest newsgathering service in the world, made its own news: Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll announced on the companys blog that the AP will cease from referring to undocumented immigrants as illegal.

The companys esteemed Stylebook no longer sanctions the term illegal immigrant or the use of illegal to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that illegal should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally.

From Kathleen Carrolls release:

Change is a part of AP Style because the English language is constantly evolving, enriched by new words, phrases and uses. Our goal always is to use the most precise and accurate words so that the meaning is clear to any reader anywhere.

The APs move to limit and clarify the use of illegal was a particularly welcome one for immigration activists.

Three years ago the website Colorlines launched a campaign to convince media entities to Drop the I-Word, meaning illegal, from coverage of immigration issues. Early efforts attempting to convince the AP to abandon illegal in favor of undocumented, however, were rebuffed.

[D]espite ardent support from some quarters [we didnt make the change] because it is not precise, wrote Carroll. A person may have plenty of documents, just not the ones required for legal residence

Link:
Why the Word ‘Illegal’ Is Out of AP Style

My nephews high school government class was studying propaganda, a word most students associated with Hitler, Goebbels, and the like. I deal with propagandists every day, I told the class in the Detroit arealast week. They work in the White House and in Congress--Republicans and Democrats alike.

The kids were a bit surprised. Are you calling them Nazis? one asked. Of course not, I replied, but politicians today are using new communications tools to spread their version of the truth, much of it misleading.

A smart piece by Nancy Benac of the Associated Press describes how the Obama White House image machine works--serving up a stream of words, images, and videos that invariably cast the president as commanding, compassionate, and on the ball. In this world, Obamas family is always photogenic, first dog Bo is always well-behaved, and the vegetables in the South Lawn kitchen garden always seem succulent."

Virtually every president has sought to control their images, often using new technology to keep traditional media at bay and to communicate directly with voters. Abraham Lincoln was, in the words of one biographer, our first media politician who continually manipulated newspaper editors. Franklin Roosevelt used the radio and John F. Kennedy the television to disseminate their messages unfiltered by the White House press corps. Ronald Reagan ran a tightly scripted White House. Bill Clinton bypassed experienced, probing Washington reporters in favor of talk radio and local media.

Obama benefits from the fact that 21st-century publishing is democratized via the Internet. Anybody, even the president, can cheaply create and distribute content without the filter of independent journalists. Presidents need the [mainstream media] less than they once did, New College of Florida political science professor Richard Skinner said Monday night in reply to my tweet on Benacs story.

If propaganda from Washington is not new, only different, why should you care?

1. You dont trust authority. Polls show that Americans hold little regard for the veracity of political institutions and leaders. While the public has also lost faith in the media (justifiably so), independent journalists are the only check against misinformation, distortion, and lies from government.

2. Propaganda sows distrust. You already dont trust government. Does your cynicism increase or decrease as more information comes to you with an obvious slant? Its bad enough that some news organizations have abandoned even the pretense of ruthless nonpartisanship. What if, soon, the bulk of news you get comes directly from government and political leaders? It could happen.

3. Leaders know better. Ask a politician if a robust, independent media industry is important to democracy and theyll say yes. I know sometimes you like to give me a hard time, Obama told journalists assembled at last years White House Correspondents Association Dinner. But I never forget that our country depends on you. Then why does he work so hard, and effectively, to minimize the press corps role?

Having witnessed Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush field off-the-cuff questions almost daily, I regret the steep decline of impromptu Q&A sessions under Obama. While I understand why Obama doesnt want reporters to knock him off message, as happened so often to past presidents, the informal Q&A forced presidents to think on their feet and be accountable in a way that formal news conferences and interviews with handpicked journalists do not.

Read the original here:
From Lincoln to Obama, Presidents as Propagandists