Mediaboss Marketing

Its time for the Associated Press and the New York Times to join the rest of us

The Online News Association met this past week. As you might expect, they tweeted a lot. When Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Jose Vargas was at the podium Sept. 21 giving the keynote speech, a veritable social media storm erupted.

Its time we retire the word and the term illegal immigrant in referring to people. It is not only an inhumane term it is a political term, it is an unfair term, it is an inaccurate term, said Vargas. Himself an undocumented immigrant from the Philippines, Vargas called particularly on the New York Times and the Associated Press to change their stylebooks to a less politicized term.

The majority of responses from journalists we tracked on Twitter, responded to Vargas challenge cautiously, or refuted contention that undocumented was a less politically charged term.

Robert McMillan, a journalist from New Jersey who writes for Reuters, tweeted: I always thought undocumented was equally politicized. But maybe Im wrong.

Mike Roe, a journalist from L.A., tweeted: Agreed on it being an equally if not more politicized term at this point.

Vargas comments, and the hubbub surrounding it, prompted a restatement of the New York Times editorial stance by Phil Corbett, associate managing editor for standards, in an interview with Poynter. We do think the phrases 'illegal immigrants' and 'illegal immigration' are accurate, factual and as neutral as we can manage under the circumstances, Corbett said.

Margaret Sullivan, the New York Times Public Editor wrote a blog post about it Sept. 24, and issued an invitation for the public to comment about it.

It is interesting, if infuriating, to see this conversation so delayed in the New York Times. We, along with our fellow members of the Latino press, have long urged the Associated Press and all mainstream media to join with the Society of Professional Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists in changing their stylebooks and dropping the i-word. Neither media bellwether has seen fit to do so.

Read the original:
Dropping the i-word

Go ahead, say it. I won't be offended. It's not like I've never heard anybody tell me, "You know, Kerth, sometimes you talk like a real A-word."

It's just that I couldn't help but smile about this big kerfuffle in England after some photos came out showing Kate Middleton wearing little more than a grin while frolicking on an outdoor terrace in full view of a photographer standing on a public road. The photos were scheduled to hit newsstands all across Europe, from Ireland to France and Italy and beyond.

The Royal response was what you would expect it to bea modern-day version of "Off with their media heads!"

Oh, it isn't that the Royals have any objection to journalistic nudity. Most of the European press is free to publish nude photos if they want to.

But not nude photos of the Royals. Even when those Royals flash their regal nuggets in public for all to see.

See, if these were snapshots of Kate the serving girl who pours your tea at the table and asks if you would like a bit more clotted cream for your scones, there would be no problem at all.

But these were not photos of that Kate. No, these were photos of the Kate who became a Royal by marrying a prince named William, a guy who was destined to be king even before he proved himself capable of a successful hiccup or bowel movement.

Oops, there I go again. English Royal tots may be capable of a cute hiccup, but not well, you know. Sorry, your Highness. I know how hard it must be to maintain the image that Royals function without functions like that.

I give credit to the Queen for being honest in her criticism. No, it isn't mere nudity in the press that offends Us, she told the world. It is Our Royal nudity in the press. We can't have that because well, because We Royals are better than all the rest of you. See, it says so right here in our Constitution. We don't even have to prove We're better than you and keep proving it until somebody better comes along. We're born better. And We will stay better to the end of Our lives, when Our children will become King and Queen. Because Our children will always be born better than your children.

She doesn't expect us to understand that kind of clear English logic over here on this side of the Atlantic. After all, our press corps have a field day with the families of our own royals.

Go here to see the original:
The View From Planet Kerth: Still more proof that the crown can be a royal pain

Birmingham, Alabama (PRWEB) September 27, 2012

Veteran Internet marketing attorney Michael J. Evans says that many lawyers still arent getting new clients from the Internet. And Evans believes that should change.

In an article posted on his Attorney Marketing blog yesterday, Evans discussed the findings of a survey released by LexisNexis on September 18, 2012. The survey shows that 57% of people searching for an attorney in the past year used the Internet to help locate a lawyer. And the study showed that people looking for lawyers gave just as much weight to information on the Internet as they gave to the advice of family and friends, Evans said.

Evans announced that hes offering ten law firms a free consultation to discuss their Internet marketing strategy. Details of the free offer, available for only a limited time, are posted at Attorney Marketing Online.

This study confirms what I knew from personal experience, Evans said. Personal injury attorneys who advertise only on television are missing a huge potential market for their services. I've used online marketing for cases involving defective drugs and medical devices, as well as other mass torts."

"Currently I have teamed up with other lawyers to offer legal services to people who developed bladder cancer after taking the diabetes drug Actos. We've got an [Actos Lawsuit website offering free legal reviews of Actos claims. These types of websites are just one of many effective online legal marketing tools available to law firms," said Evans.

For the past twelve years, Evans has organized national networks, or alliances, of law firms to represent victims of mass torts. Thousands of mass tort clients have retained our law firms based on Internet marketing, Evans said, so I knew it worked for mass torts. What the new survey proves is that it will also work for other types of law practice.

Evans said he is currently looking into organizing two new legal alliances, one for bankruptcy attorneys and another for disability attorneys. In the early years of my law practice, I represented clients who had been wrongly denied disability benefits. I also represented thousands of poor people in class actions filed against loan sharks who charged illegal rates of interest and then tried to foreclose on houses owned by honest, hard-working people.

"I have a tremendous appreciation and respect for our bankruptcy and disability attorneys. The lawyers who represent disabled and bankrupt people are standing up for the most vulnerable members of our society. These are the attorneys who went into the practice of law to help real people in serious need. I hope to extend all of the Internet marketing and networking services to the bankruptcy and disability lawyers, Evans said.

Evans is currently inviting interested bankruptcy and disability attorneys to connect with him via Linkedin, his Attorney Marketing blog, or his personal blog on law, legal marketing, and law firm technology.

Continue reading here:
Why isn’t My Law Firm Getting New Clients from the Internet? Veteran Internet Marketing Attorney Offers Free ...

27-09-2012 05:36 British Prime Minister David Cameron's appearance on Late Show with David Letterman is making waves back at home, after Cameron struggled in Letterman's surprise British history quiz. (Sept. 27)

Continue reading here:
Letterman British History Quiz Stumps Cameron - Video

ScienceDaily (Sep. 26, 2012) Federal law ought to play a stronger role in regulating social networking sites by allowing users to determine what happens to their "digital afterlives," says a recently published paper by a University of Illinois expert in intellectual property law.

Allowing social networking sites to set their own policies regarding the content associated with the accounts of deceased users does not adequately protect individual and collective interests, especially with people spending an increasing part of their lives online using social networking sites, says Jason Mazzone, a professor of law.

"Virtually no law regulates what happens to a person's online existence after his or her death," he said. "This is true even though individuals have privacy and copyright interests in materials they post to social networking sites."

Mazzone says in the absence of legal regulation, social networking sites are unlikely to adopt user-friendly policies for the disposition of copyright materials from the accounts of the deceased.

"The current situation is that there's very little law involved," said Mazzone, the Lynn H. Murray Faculty Scholar at Illinois. "Social networking sites determine on their own what, if anything, to do with a deceased user's account and the materials the user posted to the site. And their policies are not likely to reflect the collective interests that exist with respect to copyright law. It's a little bit like letting the bank decide what to do with your money after you die."

According to the paper, a federal statute could impose some requirements upon social networking sites to give users a degree of control over what happens to their accounts.

"You only want the federal government involved if there's some failure on the part of the states," Mazzone said. "But it would be very difficult for any particular state to set up a legal regime that would adequately regulate Facebook, which not only operates all across the U.S. but also all over the world. Some states have enacted legislation in an effort to protect their own citizens, but it's not at all clear how it would affect Facebook as a whole.

"In order for this type of law to be effective, we have to turn to the federal government."

There are also broader societal interests for preserving content for historical purposes, said Mazzone, the author of "Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law," published by Stanford University Press in 2011.

"It's becoming increasingly common for people to have digital assets, and some of them do actually have value," he said. "Not only are such sites repositories of intellectual property, they also are important to family members and friends. Historians of the future will likely depend upon digital archives to reconstruct the past, which creates a real problem, particularly in an age when we don't leave diaries, and, increasingly, people don't write books."

Here is the original post:
Federal law needed to safeguard 'digital afterlives', expert argues