Mediaboss Marketing

Movie director Oliver Stone is being criticized for asking Russian President Vladimir Putin softball questions. NBC News Megyn Kelly was slammed for asking adversarial questions that Putin nevertheless can easily dismiss. So how does one interview Putin to satisfy the demanding critics?

Ive never interviewed the Russian leader, although I met with him during his first presidential term when I was editor of a business daily in Moscow. Based on that experience, and on having read and watched countless interviews with him, I rather think no one can do much better with Putin than Russian voters at his annual call-in show. They ask questions such as, Why is my salary as a grade school teacher in the Irkutsk region so low? or Where is the new apartment I was promised as a flood victim? Its easy to imagine the relevant local officials squirming as Putin promises to check into a specific case.

When Putin talks to professional interviewers, his answers, which have seemed for years to come off a stack of talking point cards, have the same function. They are signals and messages to someone who isnt in the room, but they are only secondary signals compared with what Putin actually does.

Its pointless to judge a journalist or filmmaker by what he or she asks Putin or how he responds. Putins public interactions are essentially one-sided, and though it might appear that hes reacting to an interlocutor, he doesnt really engage with the interviewers or with those who ask him questions during his carefully stage-managed call-ins and press conferences; he uses them. All they can do in response is try to use him, too to make money, enhance their standing, or try to get a life situation resolved.

In September 2000 about six months into his presidency Putin faced extended questioning from the formidable Larry King. Among his smooth stock answers was a spiel about Russias opposition to the U.S. anti-missile defense system in Europe; he repeated it almost verbatim to Stone 16 years later. His only misstep occurred, as many thought at the time, when King asked him what had happened to Kursk, the Russian submarine that foundered with its crew in the Barents Sea. It sank, Putin replied with a chillingly calm cynicism.

I no longer think that was a slip. In the most recent interviews, with Kelly and Stone, Putin wasnt shy about demonstrating misogynist and homophobic attitudes. With Kelly it was all mansplaining and unnecessary references to her kids; with Stone, it was quips about never having bad days because hes not a woman and about using judo if a gay sailor approached him in the shower. These tasteless jokes get quoted a lot as though they reveal something about his personality. But Putin doesnt make them naively: He knows how they make enlightened Westerners squirm. Putin can afford to be brash and insensitive. To him, thats evidence hes impervious to comments that would ruin a Western politician. That even appeals to his American fans, at least the ones Ive met, because it rejects political correctness.

I cant recall a single interview or public appearance in which Putin revealed anything accidentally or under pressure. Hes had editors of publications ranging from The Wall Street Journal to the German tabloid Bild ask him pointed, tricky, mock-softball, pseudo-naive questions. Hes conducted four-hour press conferences and five-hour call-in shows. On each and every one of these occasions, he delivered a calculated performance to a specific audience without emotion. His dissembling is always deliberate, and his deviations from facts are meant to amplify the message.

In the case of foreign interviewers, the audience is the governments and political establishments of their countries and, to a lesser extent, the domestic audience that expects him to hold his own against the West. The message he has for foreign leaders hasnt changed in 17 years: Russia is a sovereign power with a set of historic interests that it will pursue no matter what; Western powers cant tell Russia what to do.

Ever since he came to power, Putin has been absolutely predictable in his central messages. An interviewer can only hope Putin comes up with a new turn of phrase or shows a little bit of his tightly guarded private life. He told Stone hed become a grandfather a tidbit that wasnt revealed to the Russian media. That made some Russian commentators jealous, with one complaining that the American movie star received more personal stuff than (Putin had) given in all these years to any interviewer with a Russian passport.

The most important lesson of understanding Putin is an old one: actions speak louder than words. Its these actions that deserve to be scrutinized and interpreted, however glamorous a high-profile interview may be.

Bloomberg

Leonid Bershidsky is a Bloomberg View columnist. He was the founding editor of the Russian business daily Vedomosti and founded the opinion web site Slon.ru.

Originally posted here:
In media interviews, Putin stays in formulaic control - Chicago Tribune

Singapores tightly-knit elite political circles have resorted to social media trolling, in a desperate search for a public space to vent. The two younger children of Singapores first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, have been trading blows with their elder brother, current prime minister Lee Hsien Loong, all weekend. The dispute is over the fate of the Lee patriarchs bungalow, and whether it should be demolished in accordance with Lee Kuan Yews wishes, or preserved for historical value. Various cabinet ministers and Lee descendants have joined the fray. And its all happening on Facebook, thanks in part to Singapores tightly policed press.

Singapore ranks high on wealth and other development metrics, but its among the most repressive regimes in the world when it comes to free speech, (ranking 151 out of 180 in Reporters Without Borders annual press freedom ranking, and receiving 41 out of 100 points from Freedom House). Among the methods used to control the local press: censorship of films, broadcast media, and newspapers; laws that require websites to obtain licenses from the government; and a raft of rules that allow the state to appoint directors to the board of the countrys national newspaper publisher, and give a broad interpretation of sedition, secrecy, and defamation laws, according to Freedom House.

Lee Hsien Yang, the youngest child, alluded to this in an interview with the South China Morning Post on Monday: A few of the attacks that we have had to face in private are now publicfalse accusations, character assassinations, the entire machinery of the Singapore press thrown against us. His son, Li Shengwu, was even more explicit, replying to a commenter on his Facebook post who asked why the matter wasnt in the local news yet: Because the Singapore news is heavily controlled by the government. Im in a position to know. Then theres Lee Wei Ling, the prime ministers sister, who ended her long-running column in the national daily the Straits Times last April because, she claimed, of censorship imposed by her editors. I will no longer write for SPH (Singapore Press Holdings, the Straits Times publisher) because the editors there dont allow me freedom of speech.

Which leads us to Facebook. The Lee siblings appear to be using social media strategically to get their message out, since local media cant be trusted. The SCMP quoted one anonymous longtime observer of Singapore politics who likened the younger Lees use of social media to guerilla communication tactics: [They] reflect the actions of actors who are in a less advantaged position relative to the party they are facing [off] with, the observer said.

That the Lees are turning to social media in the face of free speech restrictions in the official press is thick with irony. Those restrictions were largely engineered by Lee Kuan Yew himself, who enacted the raft of laws that today make up Singapores unique model of press control, which imposes restrictions subtly, as the Singaporean academic Cherian George has observed. Rather than overtly forcing the press to spout propaganda like the Chinese, George writes, Singapores government uses laws that govern secrecy, defamation, and internal security, as well as partial government control over media companies, to drive self-censorship. This creates a de-facto Western professional model of neutrality, but in a twisted form, he has written.

Whatever control the Lee siblings have been subjected to, it appears to be far from punitive compared to the measures meted out to ordinary Singaporeans, who have been sued into bankruptcy for saying less about the prime minister. Lee Hsien Loong is now seeking a new forum to conduct the debate. He announced yesterday that he will answer questions about the issue in parliament on July 3.

Correction: An earlier version of this post said Lee Hsien Yang is Lee Kuan Yews middle child; he is the youngest.

Follow this link:
Singapore's elite are feuding publicly on Facebook to bypass its state-controlled press - Quartz

Programmatic and data-driven creative will likely be a buzzworthy topic at the 2017 Cannes Lions festival.

Programmatic creative has progressed since last year, thanks to the maturation of machine learning and standards released by the IAB for dynamic content ads that makes it easier to customize ads for audiences and publisher sites.

But media and creative agencies dont always agree who owns dynamic creative as a service for clients.

Dynamic creative emerged at media agencies because they had the skills to do audience-based targeting. But as the technology has evolved to use machine learning to deliver personalized messages to individuals, it will benefit from more creative thinking, said Diaz Nesamoney, CEO at Jivox.

For example, while a retailer might have a media target audience of women ages 25 to 45, there are so many ways to speak to each woman within that demo, given the products theyre looking for or the context theyre in while viewing an ad, Nesamoney said.

Programmatic creative was really focusing moreon the programmatic media driving creative, he said. That was kind of an oversimplified way of thinking about it.

Creatives are starting to realize the opportunities in programmatic creative and the role they can play in making data-driven creative better, said Deacon Webster, chief creative officer at independent digital creative agency Walrus.

Creatively, I think very few people have scratched the surface of programmatic, he said. The notion that you can have banners that know, to an extent, your likes and dislikes and web habits is a powerful thing. So far, I haven't seen people really wrap their arms around that creatively.

But some media agencies are keeping their grip on programmatic creative. Since programmatic creative is based on media-driven insights, media agencies should be heavily involved in the process, said Garrick Schmitt, global director of experience design at Essence. Essence creates dynamic creative tools in-house and deploys them for all of its clients.

Were melding media-driven insights with a unique understanding of technology and doing creative around that, he said. You need to have a healthy respect for creative guided by media.

Vendors get a unique view of the agency-creative battle as they work to help both creative and media teams adopt their product.

Nesamoney thinks creatives have an important role. While his company started working primarily with media agencies (Xaxis has been a big partner), Jivox has signed on five creative shops in the past year.

This tech should be well integrated in the creative process and not done as an afterthought, which unfortunately happened a lot in early days, he said.

And creatives with a little push from their clients are waking up to the importance of how good programmatic creative can impact performance.

Within the last six months, weve seen a tremendous amount of interest amongst creative agencies, Nesamoney said. Brands are pushing them, saying, We want our creative to be dynamic and tied to programmatic media and data triggers.'

But theres a lot to learn. Creatives will have to re-engineer their processes and production protocols. Theyll have to redefine how they think about audiences. And they might not be financially incentivized to do that, said John Nardone, CEO at Flashtalking.

Theres no methodology for a creative team to do the foundational concepting that enables a messaging strategy across different slices of the target audience, he said. When you start to walk them through this, they say, The client isnt paying me to do all that work.

As media and creative teams start working closer together, programmatic creative will likely be guided by people with a mix of creative and media skill sets, Schmitt said.

In the future, its media plus creative, he said. Its about having that granular data at your disposal, the ability to know whats effective, and marrying that with a big brand idea for an individual.

Read more here:
Cannes 2017: Media And Creative Agencies Vie For Programmatic Creative Control - AdExchanger

Mainstream media (MSM) is a term and abbreviation used to refer collectively to the various large mass news media that influence a large number of people, and both reflect and shape prevailing currents of thought.[1] The term is used to contrast with alternative media which may contain content with more dissenting thought as they do not reflect prevailing opinion.

The term is often used for large news conglomerates, including newspapers and broadcast media, that underwent successive mergers in many countries. The concentration of media ownership has raised concerns of a homogenization of viewpoints presented to news consumers. Consequently, the term mainstream media has been widely used in conversation and the blogosphere, often in oppositional, pejorative, or dismissive senses, in discussion of the mass media and media bias.

According to philosopher Noam Chomsky, media organizations with an elite audience such as CBS News and The New York Times, successful corporations with the assets necessary to engage in original reporting, set the tone for other smaller news organizations which lack resources by creating conversations that cascade down to smaller news organizations using the Associated Press and other means of aggregation. An elite mainstream sets the agenda and smaller organizations parrot it.[1]

The advent of the Internet allowed the expression of a more diverse or alternative viewpoint which may contrast to mainstream media, to the point where the term mainstream media is seen in pejorative terms.[2]

Lamestream media is a common pejorative alternative. Sarah Palin referred to "lamestream media," notably around 2009 during her participation in the Tea Party Express, in the context of what she perceived as media misrepresentation of the Tea Party movement.[3][4][5]

Another term, originating on anonymous message boards, for the Mainstream Media is the anacronym "MSM". The terms is widely used by many on 4chan and Reddit, often as shorthand for the phrase "Mainstream Media".

In the United States, movie production is known to have been dominated by major studios since the early 20th Century; before that, there was a period in which Edison's Trust monopolized the industry.[citation needed] In the early twenty-first century the music and television industries was subject to media consolidation, with Sony Music Entertainment's parent company merging their music division with Bertelsmann AG's BMG to form Sony BMG and Tribune's The WB and CBS Corp.'s UPN merging to form The CW. In the case of Sony BMG there existed a "Big Five", later "Big Four", of major record companies, while The CW's creation was an attempt to consolidate ratings and stand up to the "Big Four" of American network (terrestrial) television (although the CW was actually partially owned by one of the Big Four in CBS). In television, the vast majority of broadcast and basic cable networks, over a hundred in all, are controlled by eight corporations: News Corporation (the Fox family of channels), The Walt Disney Company (which includes the ABC, ESPN and Disney brands), National Amusements (which includes CBS Corporation and Viacom), Comcast (which includes the NBC brands), Time Warner, Discovery Communications, E. W. Scripps Company, Cablevision, or some combination thereof.[6]

There may also be some large-scale owners in an industry that are not the causes of monopoly or oligopoly. Clear Channel Communications, especially since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, acquired many radio stations across the United States, and came to own more than 1,200 stations. However, the radio broadcasting industry in the United States and elsewhere can be regarded as oligopolistic regardless of the existence of such a player. Because radio stations are local in reach, each licensed a specific part of spectrum by the FCC in a specific local area, any local market is served by a limited number of stations. In most countries, this system of licensing makes many markets local oligopolies. The similar market structure exists for television broadcasting, cable systems and newspaper industries, all of which are characterized by the existence of large-scale owners. Concentration of ownership is often found in these industries.[citation needed]

In the United States, data on ownership and market share of media companies is not held in the public domain.[citation needed]

Over time the rate of media mergers has increased, while the number of media outlets has also increased. This has resulted in a higher concentration of ownership, with fewer companies owning more media outlets. In 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by fifty companies; today, 90% is controlled by just six companies.[7]

(*) As of July 2013, News Corporation was split into two separate companies, with publishing assets and Australian media assets going to News Corp, and broadcasting and media assets going to 21st Century Fox.[10]

Although Viacom and CBS Corporation have been separate companies since 2006, they are both partially owned subsidiaries of the private National Amusements company, headed by Sumner Redstone. As such, Paramount Home Entertainment handles DVD/Blu-ray distribution for most of the CBS Corporation library.

A 2012 Gallup poll found that Americans' distrust in the mainstream media was higher than it had ever been, with 60% saying they had little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. Distrust had increased since the previous few years, when Americans were already more negative about the media than they had been before 2004.[11]

Throughout 2016, Google and Facebook had been targeted to disperse a substantial amount of fake news, with the aim, it was claimed, of confusing Americans about various topics. Following the victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election and during the campaign, Americans who supported Hillary Clinton were especially enraged about the noticeable amount of fake news about the election on the two websites. It was said that Facebook has been targeted in order to sway the American people with a particular agenda during the electoral cycle, although the chief executive of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg stated that "Facebook did not have a role in the recent presidential campaign". It was also reported that the insurmountable number of "fake news" posts about the election had increased the number of Americans distrusting the media.[12]

Read the original:
Mainstream media - Wikipedia

HamiltonNews

POLL: Should governments be able to control the questions the media asks them? HamiltonNews Five Hamilton area high school students will be among 801 teens taking part in one of Canada's top incubators for youth... Enjoy areas safely. City Hall 2 hours ago. Hamilton cracks down on waterfalls parking... City of Hamilton bylaw officers will be ... Leonard Cohen - MAC MontralMAC MontralMuse d'art contemporain all 23 news articles »

Read more from the original source:
POLL: Should governments be able to control the questions the media asks them? - HamiltonNews