Wednesday, August 22, 2007
what's it all become?
And there to my surprise, in an intro about a celebrity spokesperson, was the term “magalog.” Yet another blurring of the line between advertising and content, a magalog is a magazine that is blatantly out to sell things. Well, most magazines these days tend to tow that line. Rather than a catalog, magalogs probably run articles, features etc, just with advertising worked in.
Along with the new VogueTV, magazines are working hard to reinvent themselves in a dying print market. But I think they’re taking the wrong lead, and compromising when it comes to advertising is just sad.
VogueTV kind of gets it right with the inclusion of web and broadcast based media. But it’s advertising and selling, not added content. I could be because I’m a traditionalist when it comes to ethics, but I hate the blurring of lines between content and advertising. It gives me the proverbial shudder.
For one, advertising makes me feel like I’m being talked down to. “You’re an idiot. I’m feeding you what you want to hear so you’ll buy things.” The reason I love magazines is because I think they have the potential to be intelligent, fun, and informative all at the same time. Yes, magazines have ads, but magazines are not in themselves ads.
This idea of a magalog just kills me. It screams the idea: don’t read to be informed, don’t read to have fun, or learn, or even relax. Read to consume. Read to buy.
I respect the right to buy shit. I buy stuff! I have an iPod, I have a laptop. I also buy magazine subscriptions. I don’t want to be subtly coerced into buying new products. I want to choose when advertising sways me (and don’t get me wrong, it does. Why do you think I bought the iPod?), and not have to worry about what a particular article is trying to sell me.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
always up for a cabinet shuffle
I’m anti-Oda, and I’m not afraid to say it, though unbiased journalism is smiting me right now. Oda cut funding and didn’t even believe in her own portfolio of women’s rights. Yes, I read Feministing everyday, so that might define me as one of those raging feminists who actually thinks that there is still progress to be made. But Oda didn’t work for any of that.
If you don’t believe in feminism, that’s fine with me. Oda can believe whatever she wants. But if your Cabinet position and responsibility includes working towards women’s rights, it’s probably best to put on a façade and do just that. This was probably Harper’s mistake in the first place (his way of at least ensuring that women’s rights takes a back burner instead of risking a Minister who actually cares about such trivial matters). Either way, I’m happy to see her go, and figure that Josee Verner can at least start with a fresh slate.
The rest of the shuffle was pretty quiet compared to the promotion of Peter McKay to Defence Minister. We’ve all McKay screw up many times before, so we’ll see where this goes. I wasn’t really surprised by this one, and I don’t have the time of day to worry about its consequences. McKay will be himself, to the detriment of us all.
Some visits from family and a trip to Montreal mean I haven’t been posting as much. Thoughts are a brewing and ideas spinning for school next year and this blog.
Monday, August 6, 2007
like father, unlike daughter
It's interesting on its own that a news item has surfaced through Facebook, a testament to its importance in the lives of young people and its power to generate news beyond "Cindy James has added photos."
Aside from that, I like to think that we now live in a world where we can support whoever we want. Giuliani's daughter is free to form her own opinions and state them as such, that doesn't change when your father enters politics. It doesn't mean she loves her father less, or that she doesn't emotionally support him. It means that she is capable of making her own decisions about her political tendencies and beliefs.
I'm kind of embarrassed that this issue has made the news. We are free to believe what we believe, no matter who our parents are and without suffering repercussions due to our parents beliefs. At the end of this New York Times piece they mention the fact that Giuliani is not on Facebook, so his daughter cannot add him as a friend. Well amen, anyone who has to add their Dad on Facebook would be embarrassed, and I think Caroline Giuliani is embarrassed enough right now.
under african skies
But the itch to return to Africa is back. Though I suppose I could credit it to this superb example of online reporting. This is what online reporting should be. Personal, multi-faceted, moving, informative.
Perhaps my first trip was meant for me to see through my eyes, not the eyes of a reporter. Perhaps my next trip will really let me see the stories that could be told. And perhaps I'll be able to do it that well.
undercover shame
The New York Times cut its page size today, but does anyone really care?
The paper also ran a long apology citing the number of times they misspelled Alberto Gonzales’s name. Third year journalism ethics says this is the only way to go—newspapers should declare all mistakes they make so the public can judge them accordingly.
So here’s another ethical dilemma—NBC’s Dateline sent in an undercover reporter to secretly cover DEF CON and BlackHat gatherings.
BlackHat is another such convention, discussing computer and digital screening. Their website claims to combine the best of government, hackers, and researchers at forums across the world. They provide education, briefings, and training.
Essentially, these conventions are a breeding ground for communication and security breakthrough, and Dateline’s curiosity was too strong.
It’s stuff like this that gives journalism a sensationalist, bad name.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Tor Star
The Rory Effect
Rory Gilmore. One half of the fast-talking, caffeine-guzzling, sarcastic duo that was CW’s Gilmore Girls. A fictional character.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Murdoch wins again
I will admit, I haven't been good with blogs in the past. But this is professional, not personal. Though the topic of my first post is professional for many and personal for most.
Rupert Murdoch has won his bid to purchase Dow Jones Co., adding yet another powerhouse to his mammoth stash of newspaper and broadcast media across the United States.
Most of us involved in the media have an opinion of Murdoch and his News Corporation. The media baron owns over 100 newspapers, satellite stations, MySpace, Twentieth Century Fox, and, oh yeah, Fox News. And now, he's got The Wall Street Journal, among others.
For some (biased) background on Murdoch and his ownership, check out the movie Outfoxed-- it's jam packed with interviews and opinions of reporters, editors, and former employees.
That's where the personal comes in. For reporters at the Journal and other Dow Jones media, it's not as simple as a leadership switch. Murdoch is known for imposing biased standards on his media, essentially forcing writers and editors to tow his ideological (Republican) line.
For reporters who are used to to being *gasp* impartial, this is hard to stomach. This morning, those at the top of the Wall Street Journal sent out memos and emails to staffers reassuring them that nothing will change at the esteemed paper.
Yeah, right.
Given, the Wall Street Journal is one of America's most trusted and important news sources. Murdoch and News Corporation won't be able to just walk in and change the tone, but it will happen eventually. It's easy for media barons to control the smaller papers and local television news channels, but Dow Jone and The WSJ provide Murdoch with an opportunity unparalleled. National print coverage, national print voice.
Media ownership is a problem everywhere (some of the biggest players being Canada's own Asper family and CanWest), but Murdoch is the SuperSized version of what ownership means. Everything is to the extreme, making him the perfect candidate for "Big Bad Wolf" accusations.
And he is pretty bad. Fox News on its own is infamous for their dismal ethics, propaganda, and "journalism". As another one bites the dust and succombs to unilateral media ownership, is it even worth it to protest anymore? Are we even surprised?
If I worked at the Wall Street Journal (something I once considered an indicator of "making it"), I'd be scared right now. Hell, I am scared right now. No company emails would change my mind. In fact, I'd probably expect a lot more memos to come my way. But in the end, all reporters have to put food on the table, and the majority will probably move along with the company and sweep their opinions under the carpet. Unbiased, even if their bosses aren't.