Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

June 15 2011

21:32

Speed journalism: some stories need just a tweet, but some ...

The Daily :: "... real thought", writes Trevor Butterworth, The Daily, and continues to ask: "Would you prefer to read this column as a string of tweets?" - After a New York Times reporter forgot his pen and tweeted a report about tornado-ravaged Joplin, Mo., someone might think that the future of storytelling had arrived, and that it came in increments. Is it Twitter speech or is it writing, asked the Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard? Are articles now luxuries, wondered Internet guru Jeff Jarvis? Would the State Department turn Twitter into a propaganda tool, worried Read Write Web?

Speed journalism - continue to read Trevor Butterworth, www.thedaily.com

December 01 2010

18:30

State-run papers from China and Russia buy convincing advertorial sections on the WaPo’s website

Clicking around the Washington Post, you stumble onto the types of stories you’d expect a national newspaper to cover, like “Judges free homeowners from foreclosure mess” or “Obama reaches out in Indonesia.” But then you might come across something like “A panda dream that comes true,” a story about young people from around the world becoming “pandassadors” on a panda breeding reserve in China. One of those stories is just not quite like the others. And there’s a good reason. The “pandassador” story wasn’t written or edited by anyone at the Post, but, instead, by China’s state-run English language newspaper, China Daily.

The Washington Post hosts a “paid supplement” section called China Watch on its domain (chinawatch.washingtonpost.com). On the right-hand side of the China Watch logo appears the tagline “a Paid Supplement to The Washington Post.” But beyond that line, there are few visual clues that the stories aren’t written or edited by the Post. (China Daily has run large display ads on the Post homepage directing readers to the section.)

The structure is the same as other Post sections. It has its own sub-categories of content, like business, politics, opinion, and multimedia. The bylined stories can be shared on Twitter or Facebook. You can leave a comment. There are traditional display ads within the section — for China Daily’s own site. In a way, it’s a site within a site, a digital translation of the advertorial insert you might find in a print-edition newspaper. But online, that insert is seamlessly embedded into the the broader publication.

When reached via email, Jennifer Lee, communications manager for the Washington Post, said: “China Watch is a print and online paid advertising section. It is clearly labeled as advertising so readers know the content is not produced by The Washington Post newsroom. China Watch’s advertising campaign runs through September 2011 and will be updated by the advertising department.”

She also noted that this is not the first time the Post has sold a government-backed publication space on their site. The Post has been hosting a section called Russia Now since 2007. Like the China Watch section, Russia Now’s logo includes the line “a paid supplement to the Washington Post.” It’s a product of Rossiyskaya Gazeta, the Russian government newspaper that runs the “official decrees, statements and documents of state bodies.” The “About Us” page on the Post section doesn’t mention that part, but describes the Gazeta as simply “the leading Russian daily.” It boasts publishing headlines in newspapers around the globe.

By comparison, here’s how China Watch is described on its “About us” page:

China Watch, previously known as Reports from China, is a paid supplement to the Washington Post, and is presented by China Daily. The international project started in 1996, and went online in 2010. It selects for the American readers the latest and in-depth news and analysis about China’s business, society and culture.

And here’s the description of China Daily:

China Daily is the national English-language newspaper in China and is one of the most authoritative newspapers in the country. It serves as a key reference point for media and society worldwide. China Daily (US Edition) is the North American version of China Daily. Launched in 2009 and published Monday through Friday, the US Edition was created to provide news about China tailored to the North American readers.

It’s also James Fallows’ favorite state-run publication, which, he notes, is “always touchingly earnest in its surface demeanor but often with a different message underneath.”

That same surface demeanor is everywhere on China Watch (à la “pandassadors”), plus that pro-China propaganda flavor. (Take, for example, a story in the business section about the handful of steps government should take to effectively intervene in the rare minerals industry.) And Russia Now has a similar earnest, upbeat feel (“Young designers freshen Moscow’s catwalk”).

Russia Now and China Daily did not get back to the Lab on a request for comment.

Regardless of whether China or Russia are winning over American readers, the content-as-advertisement strategy is an example of a trend that was around long before the web came along, but that’s been amplified by the financial realities of the digital world: the blurring of lines between advertising and editorial. Forbes recently took some heat after its first corporate-written blog launched. And this spring we wrote about Main Street Connect, a well-funded startup that hopes to make local news profitable by changing the distinction between content and advertising.

In a time when display ads are in what feel like infinite supply, and other traditional sources of revenue are fading away, publishers must experiment with new ways to profit from their content. The question is, will the supped-up advertorial pay off, and, even if it does, will it be worth it?

March 19 2010

14:00

NGOs as newsmakers: Russian-Georgian conflict edition

VIENNA — In August 2008, two wars unfolded in South Ossetia. Georgian newspapers and television stations reported an aggressive, unprovoked Russian invasion of their country. Russians, meanwhile, watched images and read tales of Georgian troops committing genocide.

For a brief period, Georgians could flip between TV stations to watch both versions. Soon, access to the Russian media ended. (Russians could not access Georgian TV and few Russians would be able to read Georgian print media.)

Margarita Akhvlediani, a longtime war correspondent and editor in chief of Go Group/Eyewitness Studio, studied the coordinated PR campaign by Georgia, the ensuing media coverage of the conflict by both Georgian and Russian media, and the role of NGOs in the information cycle. She presented some of her findings and related research at the Milton Wolf Seminar on the future of news and NGOs here in Vienna this morning. Her conclusion: International NGOs are critical to the dissemination of information in war and crisis zones.

Akhvlediani described a tale that came to symbolize the conflict for many Russians. According to the war story, dozens of Georgian villagers, seeking safety in a local church, died when Georgian soldiers burned the church to the ground. Human Rights Watch looked into the story, spending three months traveling to villages throughout the region looking for the church. Eventually, Human Rights Watch concluded: “…numerous Ossetian villagers interviewed by Human Rights Watch in [the] village said they never heard about, let alone witnessed, such an incident.”

Akhvlediani argues that this independent research serves as an important fact check on one-sided reporting happening by both sides of the conflict. Local NGOs, Akhvlediani explained, found themselves in a similar situation as local media — unwilling or unable to report a rounded look at the conflict, instead presenting a single point of view.

Western media, which parachuted in to cover the conflict, by and large provided a biased take, too, especially at the start of the conflict, according to fellow panelist Andrei Zolotov, editor-in-chief of Russia Profile (and a former Nieman Fellow). Many journalists seemed happy to latch onto the underdog narrative the Georgia government had pushed, he said. (Two dozen press releases went out in the first few days of the conflict, seeking to shore up Western support for Georgia). “It’s a very easy story to sell,” Zolotov said.

The work of Human Rights Watch, which took three months, is an unlikely project for any outlet, even the best-off newspapers. It’s an example of an ongoing theme we’ve covered this week: How can NGOs be newsmakers?

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl