Mediaboss Marketing

"It will kill the media," says Abhinav Shrivastava, an associate with the law offices of Nandan Kamath in Bangalore. He is talking of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India's recent recommendation on corporate ownership of media organisations. "By restricting corporate ownership, you will be clamping down on the sector's ability to raise funds as a whole," says Shrivastava. "On the face of it, Trai's recommendation looks untenable," adds Chinmayi Arun, assistant professor, National Law University, Delhi. "If the media cannot be incorporated into a company, it cannot grow beyond a point. By not allowing it to corporatise, you could be crippling the media," says she.

Funnily enough, Trai's 23 recommendations on "issues relating to media ownership" released last month are intended to do exactly the opposite. They are meant to foster plurality, independent journalism and build a stronger media industry. While several of the recommendations are sensible, the one on corporate ownership is vexing lawyers, media owners and investors alike.

Trai recommends that "on grounds of the inherent conflict of interest, ownership restrictions on corporations entering the media should be seriously considered by the government and the regulator. This may entail restricting the amount of equity holding/loans by a corporation in a media company to comply with provisions relating to control." The three parameters it uses to define control are: equity holding of 20 per cent or more, 51 per cent voting rights or de facto control by means of being a party to agreements, contracts, or understandings. (Ironically , one of the conditions for getting into the news media is that "the largest Indian shareholder should hold at least 51 per cent of the paid up equity".)

For more than a hundred years, media brands have been created and owned by corporations - in the US, Europe as well as India. The Malayala Manorama, one of the largest selling dailies in India, began in 1888 and survived some serious skirmishes with the British because its founders owned a rubber factory and a bank, among other businesses. The Essel group used its rice export business to finance Zee Television. Ramnath Goenka's other businesses helped finance The Indian Express. The Times of India survived years of unprofitable existence because of the family's chemical and other businesses. "If you are in the media business and want to get into IT, there is no restriction, so why should there be a restriction for anybody from any other industry getting into the media," asks Jayant Mathew, director, Malayala Manorama.

The Trai recommendations completely ignore the economic realities of the media industry. News is an expensive and unprofitable business globally. Advertisers cannot fund it completely and audiences are unwilling to pay for them. "If corporations can't fund it, that leaves only one other option, the underworld," quips one broadcast CEO in frustration. Khullar says that the ownership controls are designed to stop more damage to the media in the future.

India is a free market, so how can anyone be stopped from getting into the media, ask experts. This then is the second question. "Instead of trying to impose ownership limitations which can be breached in a million ways, regulators should allow for full plurality and remove entry and exit barriers," says Bahl. Anyone can set up, own and run a media company in a democracy and India's record so far has been wonderful - maybe too much so with thousands of newspapers and 135 news channels. About a third of these are owned by politicians and random real estate developers, making for some terrible news television. More than 60 per cent of the cable systems are owned by politicians who block other channels at will. So Trai reiterates a suggestion made in 2008 that political, governmental or religious bodies or their surrogates should be barred from broadcasting and distribution of television signals. And any such body already into news should be provided an exit.

Bahl agrees with that. "They (religious and political bodies) are different - their objective is not to operate in a competitive media market but to further a religion or a political party. The media is a competitive economic activity and survives on advertising and other forms of commercial revenues, so only those entities should be allowed to participate which are mandated to compete in commercial activities," says he. Other supporters of the ban -the-politicians-from-news brigade point to Ofcom (the communications regulator in the UK) which regulates media ownership by religious and political bodies. "Ofcom is a quasi-judicial body, it has (legal) competence," points out Shrivastava.

This then brings us to the third and most critical question: Trai's authority to make recommendations in the whole area of plurality and ownership. It is after all just the broadcast carriage regulator. The Competition Commission of India, according to Shrivastava, is the right body to regulate on issues of influence and dominance in any market, a point many media firms have made to Trai in their submissions.

The way out Trai doesn't agree with that view. It makes suggestions on cross-media restrictions such as a newspaper with a dominating share in one market cannot own a dominating TV channel in the same market and vice versa. "The vertical and horizontal limits will take care of plurality. But to handle conflict of interest, you need regulation that is outside of the government. That is where a media regulator would help," says Khullar.

Maybe giving teeth to self-regulatory bodies such as the Press Council of India or the News Broadcasters Association will be more effective, says one broadcast CEO. Others suggest getting the Union ministry of information and broadcasting out of the regulatory picture. Its conflicting roles, as the policymaker, regulator and one of the biggest advertisers, have created havoc with media regulation for years.

View post:
Trai proposals may thwart media growth

The head of the Committee to Protect Journalists believes its no longer an effective strategy

The brutal murder of journalist James Foley and now Steven Sotloff in Syria has sparked disbelief and raw outrage. Now, a broader debate is opening about the role of the media in conflict zones: Are some stories just too dangerous for journalists to cover? Should governments pay ransom when reporters are kidnapped? How should the media cover terrorist propaganda like that surrounding the beheading of these journalists?

Answering these questions requires accurate and timely information from conflict zones, precisely the kind of thing journalists risk their lives to report.

But there is one story the media has not been covering fully, at least until recently. And that is the story of the kidnappings themselves. Under a practice known as a media blackout, news organizations have routinely suppressed information about the widespread abductions of journalists and others that have taken place in Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, and other countries around the world. The number of journalists kidnapped each year varies greatly from conflict to conflict, but there has never been anything like Syria. More than 80 journalists have been kidnapped since the conflict erupted in 2011.

As head of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Ive been involved in far too many of these cases over the years. Ive provided support from media organizations and families; Ive participated in campaigns, both and public and private, to win the release of kidnapped reporters; and Ive debriefed many journalists and media organizations about their experience.

Initially, I supported the use of media blackouts in selective cases. But more recently I have come to doubt that it is an effective strategy. The rationale behind blackouts is that they can save lives by facilitating hostage negotiations. But I have seen scant evidence to support this. Meanwhile, because the news is suppressed and sometimes never released, blackouts themselves stifle the public debate and undermine the medias own credibility.

After Foley went missing while reporting in Syria on November 22, 2012, his family and editors initially asked for a blackout. But after much reflection, they decided to go public and in January 2013 launched a public campaign for his release. I believe this was the right decision. The terrible killing of Sotloff, whose abduction was not reported until ISIS itself broke the news in the Foley video, makes clear that blackouts are not likely to effect the outcome at least as far is ISIS is concerned.

In Foleys case, the public campaign did put pressure on US authorities, which launched an unsuccessful military operation to try to rescue Foley, Sotloff, and other hostages. Media coverage of Foleys kidnapping also raised public awareness about the perilous conditions in which journalists work in Syria. Finally, it prevented Foleys depraved killers from using the video of his execution to define him as a helpless victim. Indeed, blackouts may well serve the interests of Islamic militants who peddle in murder videos since they make it easier for such groups to control the message.

The kidnapping of journalists is not a new phenomenon. From Lebanon to Colombia, militant, guerrilla and criminal groups have used media kidnappings to extract ransom, generate publicity, and shape coverage. Journalists are uniquely vulnerable because they need to interact directly with the militants and where possible gain their trust.

At first, the response to such kidnappings was to use the power of the media itself to put pressure on the perpetrators to release their hostage. That strategy worked so long as those holding the journalist were hurt by the negative publicity.

View original post here:
Is it time to end media blackouts?

Interviewee: Philip Seib, Professor of Journalism, Public Diplomacy, and International Relations, USC Interviewer: Jonathan Masters, Deputy Editor September 2, 2014

The critical foreign coverage of unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, is the latest instance reflecting perceptions abroad of American hypocrisy, says Philip Seib, an expert on media and foreign policy. "The United States preaches about transparency in government and about human rights around the world," Seib says, "and then trips up on [National Security Agency] snooping and out-of-control policing in Ferguson." He says that while the negative imagery from events like Ferguson is difficult to counteract, U.S. public diplomats can do a better job of promoting foreign policy successes like humanitarian relief.

How much of an effect do the events in Ferguson have on foreign publics' perception of the U.S?

The events in Ferguson have negatively and significantly affected global perceptions of the United States. Part of this is due to the predictably hostile tone of news coverage from Russia, Iran, and the like, but the undistorted truth, as seen in the photographs and video emerging from Ferguson, tells a story that contradicts official U.S. messaging about championing human rights. When a half-dozen police officers in full military gear confront one apparently unarmed African-American with his hands raised, the image of that has its own power; no propagandistic adornment is necessary. Damage is done.

Much of the critical coverage is coming from U.S. alliesthe UK, Germany, Canadais this a symptom of deeper discontent with Washington?

From allies and others, much of the criticism reflects discontent with what is perceived as American hypocrisy. The United States preaches about transparency in government and about human rights around the world, and then trips up on [National Security Agency] snooping and out-of-control policing in Ferguson. There is a bit of schadenfreude as a result.

In general, how do you feel the U.S. brand is faring abroad these days?

I don't like using "brand" in referring to nations because it trivializes foreign policy; a nation is not a soft drink. But the United States suffers from a perceived lack of resoluteness. When the [Bashar al-] Assad regime in Syria crossed the "red line" President Obama had drawn [with a heightened threat of punishment for use of chemical weapons], and then the United States did nothing, American credibility suffered considerable damage.

How do negative events like Ferguson balance against positive ones like U.S. humanitarian relief after the Fukushima disaster or Haiti's earthquake?

The exceptional assistance that the United States has provided in the aftermath of numerous humanitarian disasters should be a more central ingredient in U.S. public diplomacy messages about what this country stands for. Granted, self-praise may seem inappropriate when many thousands of casualties have occurred and when many more thousands are living in misery, but reality must trump modesty. Too many people have only a vague concept of what America is, and fixing that requires a certain amount of self-serving communication.

See the article here:
Countering the U.S. Image Problem

MediaPA, announces today its new Chicago based client GM Scientific

Leading Hamilton Social Media and Public Relations Company MediaPA has clinched a significant global online marketing deal to provide its unique marketing and PR services to a multi- million dollar United States business.

It was confirmed last week that MediaPA will provide one of GM Scientifics leading products SureStop with proven social media strategies and implementation combined with PR.

MediaPA specialise in producing highly professional customised content which is search engine optimised for publication on social media platforms and websites. MediaPA gives businesses of all sizes a complete solution to branding and online marketing in New Zealand, Australia, Asia and across the globe. With content marketing becoming increasingly important for any business with a website or online presence, MediaPA are poised to take on more international clients as traditional borders and barriers are removed through rapidly evolving digital and technological advances.

Chicago-based GM Scientific is a major distributor of health care consumables, providing a range of products to six principal markets (medical/surgical, dental, first aid, sports medicine, military, EMS/Trauma and animal health). In particular GM Scientific has an exclusive arrangement for the promotion and distribution of the renowned SureStop range of products which are distributed worldwide.

The SureStop product range includes sterile hemostatic dressings for a variety of applications, Island Dressings, Scar Care products and more. SureStop helps control bleeding from open wounds, including mouth, ears, nose and throat. SureStop hemostatic dressings are easy to use and remove, they contain no chemical additives, are hypoallergenic and completely safe as they are derived from plant based cellulose material. With its faster time to hemostasis, bacteriostatic benefits and competitive price, SureStop offers real value for money for customers.

MediaPA is highly experienced in the field of PR & Communications. MediaPA have a highly specialised and professional team in this area with many years of involvement with all streams of media.

Founder of MediaPA, Phillip Quay has worked for a number of New Zealands leading media outlets such as TVNZ, Sunday Star-Times, Waikato Times and the National Business Review.

We are delighted to have GM Scientific on board as one of our international clients. This really demonstrates to us that our social media, PR and SEO services are now being sought around the globe to promote products which is exciting, said Mr Quay. This is a major coup for any New Zealand business and shows that our digital media expertise is recognised at a global level.

Content marketing strategies, coupled with strong PR and tactical campaigns are very effective for building a companys profile and brand and really have an impact on social engagement, said Mr Quay

More:
MediaPA, announces new Chicago based client GM Scientific

Government control over increasingly market-driven Chinese media is said to be decreasing

Participants during a session of the 'China-ASEAN Workshop on News Website Development and Cooperation' in Beijing, China, 1 September 2014. Chay Hofilea/Rappler

BEIJING, China Perceived as a regional bully by smaller countries with whom it has maritime or territorial disputes, China is engaging in what it calls "E-public diplomacy."

It is building relations with media from member-countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), inviting online journalists for the very first time to its "China-ASEAN Workshop on News Website Development and Cooperation."

In the past, China invited only traditional media for its programs, according to Zhu Xiaozhong, deputy director of the E-Public diplomacy division of the Chinese foreign ministry's information department.

About 20 journalists and media executives and two officers of the ASEAN Secretariat have been invited to participate in the media program in China from August 30 to September 6.

On Monday, September 1, they met with Chinese journalists and academics for a discussion on challenges in operating a news website and cooperation between China and ASEAN countries in the field of "E-public diplomacy."

Balancing interests

Pan Jian, deputy chief editor of People.cn, the first Chinese news website to go public on the Shanghai Stock Exchange, said that while they still need to do a lot to "bridge the gap with the people," they also have to think about returns to their investors by "developing new forms of media" and "setting up media groups that enjoy considerable influence."

The day after People.cn enlisted in the stock exchange, its stock price rose to 106%, about twice the stock price of the New York Times, Pan said.

See the article here:
China sees growing clout of new media