Mediaboss Marketing

COMMENT

Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has drawn the personal ire of Rupert Murdoch. Photo: Christopher Pearce

Political history has shown that picking a fight with Rupert Murdoch can be career suicide.

Thus the media industry was awash with theories on why Malcolm Turnbull has jumped into the boxing ring with Rupert Murdoch over changes to media ownership laws. Chief among them is that it will ultimately do more damage to Tony Abbott.

Another theory around Turnbull's motivation is that he is under pressure to do something within his media and telecommunications portfolio beyond increasing the price of stamps and overseeing changes to the National Broadband Network.

It would be a lot more palatable to think that Turnbull is attempting to drag media legislation into the 21st century.

Advertisement

Changing the antiquated media ownership laws in Australia is more about extending the survival of the big incumbent players than it is about giving them carte blanche to dominate or earn mega profits. There are some traditionalists in federal politics that are still operating in a bygone era. The reality is that while print media is dominated by Murdoch's News Corp the profitability of all print assets in Australia is commercially challenged.

The television networks are under huge pressure from fragmenting audiences, most recently from the introduction of streaming services like Netflix and locally grown defensive plays like Presto and Stan.

The returns from print assets have been decimated by the internet and more recently by giant online aggregators like Google and Facebook.

See the original post here:
Rupert Murdoch and Malcolm Turnbull in media prize fight

COMMENT

Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has drawn the personal ire of Rupert Murdoch. Photo: Christopher Pearce

Political history has shown that picking a fight with Rupert Murdoch can be career suicide.

Thus the media industry was awash with theories on why Malcolm Turnbull has jumped into the boxing ring with Rupert Murdoch over changes to media ownership laws. Chief among them is that it will ultimately do more damage to Tony Abbott.

Another theory around Turnbull's motivation is that he is under pressure to do something within his media and telecommunications portfolio beyond increasing the price of stamps and overseeing changes to the National Broadband Network.

It would be a lot more palatable to think that Turnbull is attempting to drag media legislation into the 21st century.

Advertisement

Changing the antiquated media ownership laws in Australia is more about extending the survival of the big incumbent players than it is about giving them carte blanche to dominate or earn mega profits. There are some traditionalists in federal politics that are still operating in a bygone era. The reality is that while print media is dominated by Murdoch's News Corp the profitability of all print assets in Australia is commercially challenged.

The television networks are under huge pressure from fragmenting audiences, most recently from the introduction of streaming services like Netflix and locally grown defensive plays like Presto and Stan.

The returns from print assets have been decimated by the internet and more recently by giant online aggregators like Google and Facebook.

Go here to see the original:
Rupert Murdoch and Malcolm Turnbull in the media boxing ring

When President Obama took office in 2009, the American media was in free fall. In February of that year, theColumbia Journalism review estimated thatmore than 12,500 editorial newspaper jobshad been cut over two years, and papers across the country were folding or scaling back.

Journalism's business model implodedas readers and advertisers migrated online. Craigslist killed the classifieds, and the idea of"bundled" news available via a subscription became unnecessary, especially with the growth of social media as a place to share and find it. And the market crash didn't help.

It's a sign of the state of the media today that a numberof the interviews Obama has given this year have beenwith outlets that either didn't exist at all or didn't exist in their current formwhen he was inaugurated. There have been interviews withGrantland(est. 2011)andVox(est. 2014).BuzzFeed, with which he did an interview and a video, was founded in 2006 but didn't hire political reporters until 2012, and theYouTubestars who interviewed Obama all made their viral debuts since he's been president. Vice, the outlet that released an Obama interview in recent days, has been around longer than Obama's presidency, but is a far different (and better-funded) product these days than it was in the years after its 1990s founding.

The Internetlaid waste to newsrooms across America, but it eventually led to experiments injournalism forthe social age. Aided by money from venture capitalists, native ads and wealthy benefactors, some are actuallygrowing again.TweetDeck is the new Newswire, posting to your Facebook feed is the new paper route, and it's once again safe to encourage college students to study journalism (we hope).

Obama, the first president in this new media landscape, has adapted to it. The White House's press strategy is savvy and selective, and it gets the results it wants. TheVox interview felt like an ad, the BuzzFeed Motion Pictures video (separate from the interview with editor-in-chief Ben Smith)was an ad (for Obamacare), and the Grantland piece was written by Rembert Browne, who disclosed that hevolunteered for the Obamacampaign in 2008 and applied for a job for his 2012 campaign. Meanwhile, the Washington Post hasn't interviewed the president since 2009.

Obama's defenders would argue that this strategy reflectshisaversion to Washington and a desire to reach a young audience, but traditional media are none too impressed. TheColumbia Journalism Reviewsaid astudy of his interactions with the media"reveals a White House determined to conceal its workings from the press, and by extension, the public." In all of 2014, hegave only five solo press conferences. Five decades early, John F. Kennedygave as many as 23 per year. (Obama also gave 20 joint press conferences with foreign leaders and 24 short question-and-answer periods after he made a statement in 2014.) So much for the "most transparent administration in history."

Unlike JFK, though, Obama doesn't necessarily need newspapers, magazines, radio or television to get his message out. With social media, the White House can bypass the other outlets entirely. Thenight of his State of the Union address, rather than giving the pressadvance embargoed copies of his speech, the White Housepublished it onMedium(est. 2012).

And lest you think this practice won't live in with the next president, witness Hillary Clinton. The Democratic frontrunneralso chose to bypass the traditional media withher initialresponse to the controversy surrounding her use of a personal e-mail account while Secretary of State. Her first response was a 26-word tweet, indicating she wanted the State Department to release her e-mails.It was viewed by more than 3.3 million times, 2.3 million of which came from embeds, according to Twitter.

Her tweet was low-hanging fruit in the our new media age, easily embedded. Itwas a press release, and it was echoed widely. But it didn't really address the controversy at hand-- or mention that the State Department didn't have her e-mails to begin with, and as many as half of them were deleted without a third party deciding whether it should be public record.

Eventually, she had to go the traditional-media route. Standing in front of the press at the United Nations on Tuesday, she actually had to answer questions, and she left many unanswered.

Continue reading here:
The Fix: Do voters even need the media anyway?

ANN ARBOR, Mich. -

Some of social medias greatest stars arent even old enough to tweet: Pictures of kids playing dress up, having meltdowns and even in the bathtub adorn Facebook walls. Diaper-donning toddlers dancing to the likes of Beyonce and Taylor Swift rack up YouTube views. Countless blogs share stories about everything from potty training to preschool struggles.

TodaysUniversity of Michigan C.S. Mott Children's Hospital National Poll on Children's Healthfinds that this so-called sharenting isnt going anywhere anytime soon, with more than half of mothers and one-third of fathers discussing child health and parenting on social media and nearly three quarters of parents saying social media makes them feel less alone.

Web extra: Read the full report here Buthow far is too farwhen it comes to crossing the boundaries between public and private life?

By the time children are old enough to use social media themselves many already have a digital identity created for them by their parents, saysSarah J. Clark, M.P.H., associate director of the University of Michigan C.S. Mott Childrens Hospital National Poll on Childrens Health and associate research scientist in the U-M Department of Pediatrics.

Sharing the joys and challenges of parenthood and documenting childrens lives publicly has become a social norm so we wanted to better understand the benefits and cons of these experiences. On one hand, social media offers todays parents an outlet they find incredibly useful. On the other hand, some are concerned that oversharing may pose safety and privacy risks for their children.

When sharing parenting advice on social media, common topics included getting kids to sleep (28%), nutrition and eating tips (26%), discipline (19%), daycare/preschool (17%) and behavior problems (13%), according to the November/December Mott poll that surveyed a national sample of parents of children aged 0-4. Nearly 70 percent of parents said they use social media to get advice from other more experienced parents and 62 % said it helped them worry less.

However, parents also recognized potential pitfalls of sharing information about their children, with nearly two-thirds concerned someone would learn private information about their child or share photos of their child. More than half also worried that when older, their child may be embarrassed by what was shared.

These networks bring parents together in ways that werent possible before, allowing them to commiserate, trade tips and advice, share pride for milestones and reassure one another that theyre not alone, Clark says.

However, theres potential for the line between sharing and oversharing to get blurred. Parents may share information that their child finds embarrassing or too personal when theyre older but once its out there, its hard to undo. The child wont have much control over where it ends up or who sees it.

Visit link:
Sharenting: Do parents share too much on social media?

MEDIA CONTROL STALIN RED NEWS
News clip media control.

By: peter27pats

Read this article:
MEDIA CONTROL STALIN RED NEWS - Video