Category: Ftc

media notes 12.07-08.13

12/7/2013

Here are some media stories of note for the weekend of December 7-8, 2013:

China's crackdown on foreign journalists reveals much about the thinking of the country's new leadership, writes Evan Osnos for The New Yorker. The threat to expel foreign journalists (largely by failing to renew their visas) is the clearest indication yet of the approach leadership will be taking to their self-perceptions as they confront their challenges. The leadership is indicating that reporting about the sudden financial gains by individuals is a great threat and worth sacrificing the larger goals of the country in order to avoid the telling.

Reuters looks at how former Chinese piracys haven now pay to legally licence the content but also employ people to sleuth the Internet and identify pirate sites to close. It is part of a new arrangement in China designed to respect copyright and vilify the violating operations.

Robert Mahoney, the deputy director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, writes on the chill on the British press, exemplified by this week's Commons committee appearance by Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger. Mahoney argues the effort by authorities to deal harshly with the Guardian's publication of surveillance secrets leaked by Edward Snowden sends a signal to other regimes: "If the editor of a national newspaper in a country with a functioning democracy and 300-year-old tradition of a free press can be threatened and bullied, what more does an autocrat need to do except invoke national security and cite the British example?"

Jack Shafer, the media columnist for Reuters, worries that any effort by the Federal Trade Commission to regulate sponsored content could have more serious consequences than leaving it alone. Shafer speculates that the reader/advertiser/publication symbiosis may have broken down, but that is no reason to permit the FTC to determine how to fix it. At the very least, it will have to be more gentle on journalism than it has been on advertising.

media notes 12.05.13

12/5/2013

Here are some media stories of note for Thursday, December 5, 2013:

We've heard it repeatedly: Television is dead, people will use their laptops, tablets and smartphones now to watch video. Well, not exactly. In fact, not at all. Television (at least in the U.S.) is hot, except that it's hot in a timed-oven kind of hot, with personal video recorders delaying the viewing. Once you look at the PVR-delayed consumption, and video-on-demand consumption, television viewing is up. Live-TV viewing is slightly down, but delayed-TV viewing is well up. Peter Kafka of AllThingsDigital notes that the numbers don't necessarily serve television's industry well (advertisers have yet to pay well for those time-delayed viewers), but it's clear TV is liked. It's just on our timetable now, he says.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission's workshop Wednesday on native advertising was touted as a watershed event in which government would put on the table its concerns about the blurry lines between editorial and advertising. But the FTC chair, Edith Ramirez, didn't suggest new regulations were coming. She did say, though, that some forms of sponsored content have transgressed appropriate boundaries and misled consumers they are editorial and not advertising content. She promised continued vigilance on the issue. AdAge noted the vigorous defence by the advertising agencies and online sites about their practices.

Ivan Verstyuk, a senior editor at the RBC news agency in Ukraine, writes about the deeply troubled media business in his country. Paid-for news is routine and business interests are advanced without sufficiently critical faculties applied.

Countries feature different approaches to journalistic expression, as we know, but Foreign Policy outlines the distinction between two countries that we might think would be pretty aligned and congruent. The U.S. and U.K., though, are tackling the leaks of former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden in radically different ways, and it is possible the U.K. could charge The Guardian for sharing its non-redacted files with The New York Times. It isn't what it published, but what it shared.

media notes 12.04.13

12/4/2013

Here are some media stories of note for Wednesday, December 4, 2013:

Today is the day the U.S. Federal Trade Commission holds a workshop on native advertising. That sounds like the dullest possible combination, but its implications are enormous and the media business has prepared for it like a day on the stand as an accused. How this event goes could well determine the direction of regulation around sponsored content online and how consumers are protected as it is presented. The New York Post reports on the Interactive Advertising Bureau's discussion paper on the topic, which indicates sponsored content will be the prime engine for digital growth in the years ahead: $4.6 billion by 2017, up from $1.6 billion last year.

Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The Guardian, was called to testify before a British Commons committee Tuesday to defend the news organization's release of surveillance secrets leaked by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. He had to deal with fairly strenuous lines of questioning, among them one on whether he loved his country. The New York Times reports on the pressures exerted on The Guardian since the revelations, including more than 100 contacts with authorities. Roy Greenslade of The Guardian itself suggests Rusbridger didn't break a sweat.

Pierre Omidyar, the eBay founder who is creating an ambitious news organization, weighs in on the recent case involving PayPal and an an attack on service by the Anonymous organization. The prosecution of those accused of the attack, and the issues related to disclosures by WikiLeaks, raise important questions on free expression that Omidyar believes have not been properly discussed. He understands the concerns about the damages of attacks on services, but also wonders the direction prosecutors will take on issues of the First Amendment in the digital age. Even though these cases appear extreme, they set a tone for press freedoms, he argues.

media notes 12.03.13

12/3/2013

Readers note: I've started a blog with weekly (or thereabouts) media commentary, www.presswatching.com. My first post discusses the Rogers-NHL deal and its implications for the CBC.

---

Some stories of note for Tuesday, December 3, 2013:

The unpaid/lowly-paid intern is a fact in media. In recent months there have been more calls, and some litigation, to change the plight of those who work at rates below the minimum wage for organizations that are not without means. Charles Davis, writing for VICE, examines the liberal-leaning media and their traits as intern employers. He finds more than a little irony.

The New York Times looks at the emergence of public-backed investigative journalism and the announcement Monday of uncoverage.com. The site will field pitches from journalists and crowd-fund stories and topics. The site promises more serious coverage, not celebrity journalism.

A U.S. Federal Trade Commission workshop Wednesday will discuss more formally the ethical issues for consumers of native advertising. The gathering won't deliver any findings immediately but will hear from interest groups on how this content might mislead or confuse consumers. Rick Edmonds, writing for Poynter, sets up the gathering.

media notes 09.17.13

9/17/2013

Some media stories of note for Tuesday, September 17, 2013:

Paul Farhi, writing for The Washington Post, looks at Monday's breaking coverage of the Navy Yard shootings and the initial inaccuracies among media in determining the scope of the mass murders and the gunman involved. He notes how many mistakes emanated from police sources and moved through the media without adequate verification.

Tom Rosenstiel, writing for Poynter, says transparency should replace independence as a guiding principle for journalism. Rosenstiel, executive director of the American Press Institute and co-author of a new book with Kelly McBride on journalism ethics, says there should be three elements of the transparency: show technique, approach, and engage communities.

The Guardian writes on proposed changes to libel action in Britain that will make it more affordable to launch legal proceedings against publishers and broadcasters. The media industry worries this will permit vexatious claims and chill controversial investigations. Libel proceedings are significantly more expensive in England than elsewhere (up to 100 times), and the reforms will permit the courts to reduce the fees for one party if it does not have economic means to fully participate.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is going to examine native advertising and how it can blur the line between editorial and advertising content. Jeff John Roberts, writing for paidContent, notes the FTC will stage an event in December with a range of experts to look at how such messages are presented and consumed. Earlier this year the commission imposed disclosure obligations about such sponsored content.

Google's vision of journalism's business model

7/25/2010

In recent days the world's largest Internet company has pushed back on the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's proposed approaches on journalism in the digital age. In effect Google has told the FTC it is overreacting in the evolution of journalism and its business models.

The FTC staff report, for instance, had proposed restrictions on so-called "hot news" to restrict how much material from one source could be repurposed by others. Google just doesn't agree, nor does it support taxes to strengthen news organizations or proposals that would charge aggregators to carry content.

Rather, Google views the transformation of business models as an event that should not include meddling. It is up to organizations and the market to figure it out, not for government to ride to any rescue of the status quo. It notes that creators can already keep their content from being indexed if they wish, but it also notes that its search engine drives readership and consumption to those sites --- and ultimately, advertising and revenue.

"Maximizing the monetization of online traffic will require innovation and experimentation," it notes in its submission to the FTC.

But: "The ultimate solutions that will result in a new online equilibrium for the news industry cannot, however, be mandated by changes in the regulatory framework on in copyright laws."