Mediaboss Marketing

Yet as many analysts see it, Mr. Westergrens departure was an inevitable result of the investment from Sirius XM, the satellite radio giant controlled by Liberty Media. Executives at those companies, particularly Gregory B. Maffei, Libertys chief, have made it clear that they admire Pandoras core advertising business but have little interest in the rest.

This is the door being opened wide for the Liberty-Sirius XM team to come in with a new agenda for Pandora, said Barton Crockett, a media analyst with FBR Capital Markets.

In its announcement on Tuesday, Pandora said that Naveen Chopra, its chief financial officer, would be interim chief executive while the company searches for a new leader, and that Jason Hirschhorn, a former executive at Myspace and MTV Networks who runs a popular news aggregator, had joined the board.

Shares in Pandora were flat on Tuesday, rising only 3 cents to close at $8.49. On Monday, they had jumped 2 percent after the technology news site Recode reported Sunday night that Mr. Westergren was preparing to leave.

The exit of Mr. Westergren, a former musician who has been internet radios most enthusiastic evangelist, is the most dramatic development in a tumultuous year for the company, full of management departures, a falling stock price and continual pressure from Wall Street to sell.

Mr. Westergren, who also left his position on the board, did not respond to messages seeking comment. But in a statement issued by Pandora, he said he was incredibly proud of the company we have built.

We invented a whole new way of enjoying and discovering music, Mr. Westergren added, and in doing so, forever changed the listening experience for millions.

Mr. Westergren was one of the founders of the company in 2000, when it was called Savage Beast Technologies and sold music recommendation services to businesses like Best Buy. He was chief executive of Savage Beast from 2002 to 2004.

Renamed Pandora Media in 2005, the company became by far the most popular internet radio service, using a proprietary music genome technology that analyzed the characteristics of songs its users liked, and fed them others like it.

One of the few digital music brands to become a household name, Pandora amassed 80 million regular users and built a substantial advertising business, generating more than $1 billion in sales last year.

But the company antagonized the music industry along the way, and was slow to adapt to the challenges posed by Spotify and Apple.

After taking over as chief executive in March 2016, Mr. Westergren tried to remake the service, striking licensing deals with record companies for a new subscription service, Pandora Premium, that let users listen to any song for $10 a month.

Investors were skeptical of those plans, and worried about all the cash Pandora was burning through.

In the third quarter of last year, for example, Pandoras new music deals contributed to a $93 million jump in its licensing costs, and by the end of 2016, the company logged a $343 million net loss, double its loss from the year before, according to filings.

The sale of Ticketfly was another bruising experience. Pandora bought the company, a fast-growing ticket provider for clubs and theaters, in late 2015 for $335 million, and this month sold it to Eventbrite, another ticketing start-up, for just $200 million.

When he took over last year, Mr. Westergren said repeatedly that Pandora was not for sale, despite strong pressure from activist investors and a sagging stock price; since the beginning of the year, its shares are down by a third. But a deal of some kind seemed inevitable.

Since Sirius XMs investment was announced on June 9, Pandoras board has faced a conflict between Mr. Westergrens expansive plans for the company and the wishes of its incoming directors. Recruiting a strong new chief executive would have been problematic with Mr. Westergren still on the board.

Tim stepped in to be C.E.O. at a critical time for the company, Timothy J. Leiweke, another board member, said in a statement, and was quickly able to reset relations with the major labels, launch our on-demand service, reconstitute the management team and refortify our balance sheet by securing an investment from Sirius XM.

Over the last year, there has been continual turnover among Pandoras executive ranks. Sara Clemens, the chief operating officer and a driving force behind its acquisition strategy, resigned in December. In April, just weeks after the company released Pandora Premium, its chief technology officer left.

On Tuesday, Pandora announced that Michael S. Herring, its president and former chief financial officer, and Nick Bartle, who had joined the company only nine months ago as chief marketing officer, were also leaving.

A Pandora spokeswoman also confirmed that the company would soon be exiting Australia and New Zealand, the only countries where it operated outside the United States.

With these changes, Pandora will have undergone a nearly complete overhaul of its management in a little more than a year. More moves are expected, although analysts are hoping that the latest changes, and some level of control from Sirius XM, will steady the company.

This is the calm after the storm, said Amy Yong, a media analyst at Macquarie Securities.

A version of this article appears in print on June 28, 2017, on Page B3 of the New York edition with the headline: Turmoil Continues at Pandora Media As C.E.O. Joins Management Exodus.

Read more from the original source:
Turmoil Continues at Pandora Media as Its Chief Executive Resigns - New York Times

I, as a good Democrat, support Kathy Griffin and those true Americans who walked out on Mike Pence's speech at Notre Dame last month.

In Griffin's case, it proves conservative control of the media (TV, newspapers, radio) in America ganging up getting someone fired because of their political views.

All good Democrats should get behind these two people and the few Democrats in Congress who fight to keep our democracy and stop the Republicans in their tracks from turning America into a big church, dominated by a one world government. Also destroying our voter rights, worker security rights and women's rights to choose what they do with their own bodies.

How do you cut the taxes of the rich, starve all government programs of money to operate, then run a country? Didn't work for Hoover won't today.

Frank Couch

Anderson

Go here to see the original:
Letter: Conservative control of media is shown - The Herald Bulletin

It was many years ago, but the memory lingers of the first time I was embarrassed to be a journalist. It was a steamy summer afternoon and reporters and photographers were shoe-horned into a small Manhattan apartment for a civic groups announcement.

As we waited, a photographer wearing a press card in his battered fedora picked up a bud vase from a table, pulled out the rose and drank the water in one gulp.

The hostess was horrified and shrieked, What are you doing? He looked at her as if she were nuts and said simply, Its hot in here and Im thirsty.

I laugh now at the outlandishness of the photographers behavior, but at the time I cringed and wondered: Do I really want to be a journalist and end up like that?

America should be so lucky now. Bad manners are the least of it.

In the sixth month of Donald Trumps presidency, we are witnessing an unprecedented meltdown of much of the media. Standards have been tossed overboard in a frenzy to bring down the president.

Trump, like all presidents, deserves coverage that is skeptical and tough, but also fair. Thats not what hes getting.

What started as bias against him has become a cancer that is consuming the best and brightest. In rough biblical justice, media attempts to destroy the president are boomeranging and leaving their reputations in tatters.

He accuses them of publishing fake news, and they respond with such blind hatred that they end up publishing fake news. Thatll show him.

CNN is suffering an especially bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, even trying to make a virtue of its hostility to the president. In doing so, executives conveniently confuse animus with professional skepticism, and cite growing audiences as proof of their good judgment.

The bottom line matters, and there is certainly an audience for hating Trump all the time. But facts and fairness separate major news organizations from any other business looking to make a buck, and a commitment to them creates credibility and public trust.

Thats how CNN sold itself for years boring but trustworthy. Now its boring and untrustworthy.

For all its bravado, the network might be having doubts about its course. Its apology and retraction of a story connecting a Trump associate to a Russia investment fund, and the resignation of three journalists involved suggests the network fears it has lost control of its own agenda. It also issued a special edict barring all Russia coverage without approval from top bosses.

Russia, Russia, Russia is a fixation for all the networks, with a new study by the Media Research Center showing 55 percent of Trump coverage on nightly broadcasts was related to the Russia investigation.

That adds up to 353 minutes of airtime since May 17, compared to 47 minutes on Trumps decision to withdraw from the Paris climate pact, 29 minutes on the fight against terrorism and 17 minutes on the efforts to repeal and replace ObamaCare, according to the Daily Callers summary of the study. It said tax reform got a mere 47 seconds of coverage.

Too much coverage is far from the only problem with Russia reporting. Writing for The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald shows how reckless CNN, the Washington Post and others have been, and makes two key points.

First, that mistakes are always in the direction of exaggerating the threat and/or inventing incriminating links between Russia and Trump. Second, that all the false stories involved evidence-free assertions from anonymous sources that these media outlets uncritically treated as fact.

Hes right, and I would add another dimension: For all the focus on Russia, the media totally missed a key point. To wit, that the Obama administration did nothing about Vladimir Putins attempt to interfere in the 2016 election even though the White House knew about it for months.

Of course, most media organizations spent eight years cheerleading everything Obama did, and its no secret that members of his administration, along with career Democrats, are the anonymous sources feeding the anti-Trump narrative.

Still, it is remarkable that, if it werent for the unproven allegations of Trump collusion, the media would have no interest in the Russia story at all. This despite the fact that leading officials, including both Democrats and Republicans, have called the interference an act of war.

But its a strange war one that is important only to the extent Trump can be linked to it. Otherwise, who cares?

Predictably, the press corps has reacted as though Trump has shredded the Constitution, burned the Declaration of Independence and peed in their beer. Reporters are complaining bitterly and some murmur about a boycott, which would be like gouging out their last eye.

The White House Correspondents Association weighed in, saying, reasonably, that the briefings are important sources of information. But then it went off the rails, with its president, Jeff Mason of Reuters, saying televising them is clearly in line with the spirit of the First Amendment and that doing away with briefings would reduce accountability, transparency, and the opportunity for Americans to see that, in the US system, no political figure is above being questioned.

As Masons claims grew more grandiose, I flashed back to that photographer drinking from the bud vase so long ago. He was wrong, but honest and devoid of pretentious self-importance.

On the other hand, there is nothing honest about the claim that letting reporters perform for the camera in the White House keeps faith with the First Amendment. Its just inflated self-interest hiding behind the Constitution.

And really, really embarrassing to those of us who love journalism.

Here is the original post:
The media will do anything to bash Trump and now they're hurting - New York Post

As it stands today, the Supreme Court with its famous ban on broadcast media is our least transparent government institution.

But with its decision to turn off the cameras for some of its daily press briefings, the White House is quickly gaining ground.

Why would the Trump administration do this?

Even if it canceled the daily briefing, the press corps would have plenty to report on, both inside and outside of the briefing room.

Just like at the Supreme Court, its about control.

Since inauguration, President Donald TrumpDonald TrumpScarborough defends CNN against Trump: CNN 'has more integrity' Time asks Trump Organization to remove fake cover from golf clubs Why UK millennials voting for socialism could happen here, too MOREs administration has failed to control its message for more than a few hours at a time, so instead of working overtime to get things moving in the right direction, the White House has tamped down on access.

They are more than pleased that regular Americans via our representatives in the press are unable to openly ask Sean Spicer or Sara Huckabee Sanders the tough questions on camera whose answers, seemingly every day, make news.

The administration has proposed allowing audio instead of video at their briefings, but thats no compromise, as the White House may want to spin it.

As someone who used to work in TV news, I can tell you and the White House communications office well knows that a lack of video will discourage news producers from airing any part of the briefing, choosing instead to air the stories that have video.

Something to hear here has the same impact as nothing to see here, and the American people will again lose out.

As famed intellectual Marshall McLuhan said, the medium is the message, and the message the White House is sending to the press corps and, by extension, to the American people is that we do not trust the men and women who are charged with reporting on this administration to do so in a way that fits our narrative.

So you can kiss your access goodbye.

The Supreme Court, to its credit, does not shy away from the more insidious aspects of its broadcast ban.

While the Trump administration thinks the public and press are too persnickety to be allowed in, the justices are not shy in professing their belief that public is too dumb to understand their primary public exercises, oral argument in the 70 or so cases it hears each year.

If there were cameras in the courtroom, the late Justice Antonin Scalia told C-SPAN in 2012, the American people would see that were usually dealing with [] all sorts of dull stuff that only a lawyer could understand.

(Disclosure: Though I run an organization dedicated to opening up the federal courts, Im not a lawyer, and its not so difficult to understand oral arguments, especially if youve read the SCOTUS blog preview.)

Justice Stephen Breyer said earlier this month his reluctance in supporting cameras is due to the fact that, while questioning attorneys during arguments, he says some particularly ridiculous things from time to time [] and I dont want to watch what I say. (Yet most everyone understands that court cases are full of the hypotheticals.)

Speaking hypothetically, what then should be the White House press corps reaction to the lack of respect the Trump administration is giving them?

The only response I see that makes sense to the media blackout is a media walkout.

Already last month the White House Correspondents Association said it would object to any move that would obscure the briefings from the full view of our republics citizens.

Now is the time to back those words with action. Dont send in the interns, as some have suggested. No Jim Acosta.

No Major Garrett.

No Chuck Todd.

Walkout.

We may not be able to see the empty seats due to the cameras being off, but knowing that many of our countrys leading journalists were taking a stand against the third-world tactics of an administration adrift would give the fourth estate a principled and much-needed win against an administration prone to puerile attempts at discrediting all disinterested parties.

Maybe this action would inspire those who cover the Supreme Court to walk out of the courtroom on the first Monday in October when the justices reconvene again without cameras to hear cases.

What a courtroom sketch that would make.

Gabe Roth is executive director of Fix the Court, a national nonprofit that advocates for a more open and accountable federal courts system.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Go here to see the original:
Nothing to see here Trump's media blackout is a danger for democracy - The Hill (blog)

You are here: Home > Nunavuts suicide strategy includes Facebook, giving communities more control

National News | June 27, 2017 by Mark Blackburn Attributed to: | 0 Comments

Tweet

The Canadian Press

IQALUIT, Nunavut Social media plays a central role in a five-year plan aimed at reducing the number of suicides in Nunavut.

Just about everyone up here has a Facebook account, said David Lawson, an RCMP officer who is president of the Embrace Life Council, which helped produce the plan along with the Nunavut government, RCMP and other organizations.

Lawson said the plan, outlined Monday at Facebooks Boost Your Community summit in Iqaluit, replaces a temporary one put in place last year.

A summit was held in Iqaluit in May 2016 with representatives from across Nunavut to share ideas on what was working and what else was needed, Lawson said.

One of the things that we heard during the summit last year is that we need to make sure the work that were doing reaches more Nunavummiut _people of Nunavut _ and especially the youth, and one of the means that people suggested was social media, Lawson said.

Collaborating with Facebook for this launch will allow us to reach out to them better.

The Canadian average suicide rate is 11 per 100,000 people, but Nunavuts rate is 117. For Inuit males between 15 and 29, the rate is almost 40 times the national figure.

But Facebook use in the North is also higher than the national average, said Kevin Chan, head of public policy for Facebook Canada.

They are really using the platform as a primary way to communicate with each other. And we do see that in many communities that are more rural and more remote, said Chan, who was at Mondays summit.

Up in the North, Facebook really is the platform for communication.

The social media platform already has ways a user can anonymously report a friends distressing posts, but Chan said Facebook will now provide a link to a Health Canada wellness line that is culturally sensitive to Indigenous people.

Lawson said the Nunavut summit last year also noted it was difficult for local groups with solutions to slog through the paperwork and proposals they needed to complete in order to secure funding.

He said the new five-year plan will address that with a fund for programs, large or small, that help prevent suicide _ anything from mental health services and pre-natal care to early childhood education.

Weve made it so its easier for them to access, its easier to do up their proposals, he said.

George Hickes, Nunavuts health minister, said communities know what they need and where they need to focus efforts to prevent suicide. Issues for communities range from lack of economic opportunities to overcrowded housing and the effects of residential schools.

Were different from other jurisdictions. Im one generation from being born on the land. My father was born out on the land. So now were living a semi-urban lifestyle. Its an adjustment in identity, Hickes said.

Our communities know what they need. Weve just got to be able to give them the resources to deliver.

news@aptn.ca

Tags: Embrace Life Council, Facebook, Featured, Iqaluit, Nunavut, RCMP, suicide strategy

See the original post here:
Nunavut's suicide strategy includes Facebook, giving communities more control - APTN News