« March 2010 | Main | May 2010 »
You will have noticed of course, the media today are all over the story of teacher Peter Harvey who has been cleared of attempted murder after he attacked a pupil with a 3kg weight, shouting "die, die, die".
Well, the Telegraph appears to have a picture detailing the horrible injuries sustained in this attack.
Just look at the state of his face!
| |
|
Nearly every single respondent to a survey by TheMediaBlog.co.uk has seen what they believe to be clear instances of political bias in the UK media during the coverage of the forthcoming General Election (continues...)
In total, 96 per cent of respondents said they believe they have seen clear bias within the UK media, with just three per cent saying they hadn't and one per cent saying they are unsure.
In terms of which party benefits most from bias within the UK media, respondents suggested the Conservatives enjoy a clear advantage over Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
Certainly respondents appear to be more closely scrutinising the media and the way it covers the election and that is supported by the 69 per cent of respondents who said the forthcoming general election has increased the amount of time they spend reading newspapers and watching news programming.
And despite apparently having a strong grasp of what bias exists, and where, people aren't just seeking out those media outlets whose political allegiance matches their own.
And in the world of social media it becomes clear that the old order of politics has been challenged if not entirely overthrown.
The survey, carried out by TheMediaBlog.co.uk polled 1,055 people in April 2010.
| |
|
Sky News displays the strongest political bias of any major UK news broadcaster, according to a survey conducted by TheMediaBlog.co.uk, the full results of which will be published later this week.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents (64 per cent) said Sky News displays a clear pro-Conservative bias in its reporting. In total, 34.5 per cent of respondents said Sky News displays a "strong Conservative" bias, while 29.3 said the channel shows "some Conservative" bias. One per cent of respondents thought Sky News displays a pro-Liberal Democrat bias, there was zero suggestion of any support for Labour and only 9.1 per cent of respondents said Sky News shows no overall bias.
The second strongest bias, indentified by the survey of 1,054 respondents, was on ITV News - also believed to be pro-Conservative.
In total, 11.3 per cent said ITV shows a "strong Conservative" bias and 17.5 said it shows "some Conservative" bias. However, the bias was less clear-cut than Sky's and 6.2 per cent of respondents said they believe ITV is actually pro-Lib Dem, while 4.1 per cent identified a pro-Labour bias. The channel also faired better than Sky with the 28.9 per cent of respondents who said it shows no overall bias, and nearly a third (32 per cent) saying they are unsure.
Channel 4 and the BBC meanwhile faired far better - seen as being largely impartial on balace.
In terms of perceived neutrality, Channel 4 faired best of all, with 48 per cent of respondents saying the channel displays no clear bias and 27.1 per cent saying they are unsure. Any perceived bias on Channel 4 was split across all three main parties - Lib Dem (15.7 per cent), Labour (8.4 per cent) and just one per cent Conservative.
The BBC meanwhile showed the second greatest level of percieved neutrality (43.8 per cent), with perceived bias split across Labour (25 per cent), Lib Dem (11.4 per cent) and Conservative (9.4 per cent).
The below chart illustrates the bias identified by the survey (...continues):
While far from scientific, if we were to assume all perceived bias is equal and trade off conflicting bias, we are left with the following findings, ranking the broadcasters in order of the extent of perceived overall bias (lowest first):
1. BBC News: 4.2 per cent pro-Labour
2. Channel 4 News: 6.3 per cent pro-Lib Dem
3. ITV News: 18.5 per cent pro-Conservative
4. Sky News: 63 per cent pro-Conservative
All this is perception of course and potentially a reflection of people's own political allegiances to some degree, so we would be first to agree that a survey of this size and nature should not be regarded as definitive by any means. But please have your say, by posting a reader comment below. Full findings of the survey, which polled 1,054 people (on 19-23 April 2010) will be published later this week.
| |
|
The Guardian excitedly reveals this morning:
"Grab your popcorn! Billy Corgan and Courtney Love are on a collision course, and we all have tickets to the show ...Corgan fired off a full-blown Twitter tirade yesterday..."
Before adding, the slightly barbed:
"The squabble couldn't be happening to two nicer publicity junkies."
Indeed, the widow of Nirvana singer Kurt Cobain is no shrinking violet when it comes to publicity stunts - both obvious and unlikely. For example, here she is 'taking an editorial meeting' at the Guardian earlier this year as part of a publicity stunt for that particular paper.
But back to the breaking news. What was Love's response to this "tirade"? The Guardian's North American music correspondent informs us:
"All I am is nice about you so if you wanna be mean, be mean," she wrote...
Yowzer!
But if that remarkably tame response doesn't satisfy your need for celebrity bickering, fear not:
"For those expecting a more fearsome counter-attack, don't worry. We have a feeling the best is yet to come."
So, this is one from the 'stand on the same spot (or 'Twitter' to its friends) long enough and you're bound to see some news' school of journalism.
| |
|
The Daily Mail is clearly struggling to respond to the sudden surge in support for Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg.
Having focussed its ire on Gordon Brown in the run up to the General Election, while fluffing and fawning over PM-elect David Cameron, they have now been caught with their pants down by Clegg playing merrily and successfully in the middle ground.
Cue some desperate backtracking.
But the Daily Mail's panicked attempts to belatedly take on Clegg have lead to a cringeworthy attack today - based on eight-year-old comments, not deemed newsworthy until now - that is backfiring badly on the Mail, its diminishing credibility and its attempt to undermine Clegg.
If anything it is making the Lib Dem leader even more of an unlikely cult hero.
Many people on Twitter are now questioning the lengths the Mail will go to attack Clegg, spawning a hashtag - #nickcleggsfault - that is already trending and a popular game whereby people affectionately blame Clegg for the ills of the world, effectively scooping anything the Mail might make up themselves.
This response is also effectively preparing a welcoming committee of scorn and incredulity for any anti-Clegg comment which may emerge, no matter how valid. Could the Daily Mail be about to hand Clegg the election?
| |
|
1. A "first class" performance by Cameron and ITV
2. Meet Kerry Katona's agent... maybe
3. Exposed: The BBC's subliminal message that shows support for Nick Clegg
4. Telegraph site hacked by Romanian TV critics
7. Journalists troubled by 'embarrassing' 'diarrhoea'
8. "Cam winning battle for mums" says News of the World. Figures show the opposite
9. 'Richard Littlejohn' likes walnut whips and pickled eggs: Official
| |
|
Why are hard-up media companies turning their backs on the free publicity of online virals?
Take ITV's recent run-in with the web following the broadcast of an inappropriate Facebook comment about David Cameron during the first leaders debate (see it here). ITV went into a right old flap trying to get videos taken down, claiming "copyright infringement" when the watching world knew the real reason was red-faced embarrassment. After all, what damage could really be done to ITV's revenue or even it's credibility (stop chuckling at the back!) by letting 19 seconds of footage 'go viral'.
And then yesterday we hear that Constantin Film, the studio behind Downfall - a critically acclaimed movie which depicts the final days of Adolf Hitler - has flexed its legal muscles and insisted YouTube remove all spoof videos which have overlaid fresh subtitles onto the German language original. Over the course of time Hitler has been portrayed complaining about everything from his newspapers not arriving to the delays to the iPad.
Copyright
It is no exaggeration to say millions of web users will have seen one of the film's most dramatic scenes as Hitler, holed up in his bunker, learns that the game is up and the allied forces are almost upon him.
Of course, the subtitles have invariably told a far more irreverent story, but I do not see how this viral trend's widespread appeal has dented the film company's profits or caused it any damage, which would surely be the minimum grounds for a credible defence of copyright. If anything it has created the kind of publicity the company could not buy.
I appreciate copyright law requires companies to actively defend their intellectual property, but surely this merely flags a need for a clearer distinction between breach for the purposes of a non-conflicting use and a misuse that would prove damaging to a company's own ability to make money from its content.
It might not be on-message, or in keeping with the seriousness of the film - and I appreciate people close to a project such as Downfall might not see where a sense of humour would fit in to their own promotional activity - but could something so popular really do them any harm?
Would anybody watching the rest of the film really get to the bunker scene and shout out in the cinema, or in their own living room "...oh this bit is hilarious, I've seen it before and he really kicks off about his iPhone...", before bemoaning the fact that it didn't seem as funny this time around.
Ultimately it is about fears resulting from a lack of control. That and short-sightedness. Perhaps Constantin Film didn't want on their conscience a spoof version which caused genuine offence (it's not hard to imagine, after all, how Hitler could be put to use offending large swathes of the population). Maybe ITV.com really was worried about dropping the 'C-bomb' on young children watching on YouTube.
Or maybe they just don't really get it.
| |
|
An "exclusive" and shocking front page photo story from the Daily Star today is accompanied with the words:
"These dramatic pictures of a stricken passenger jet show the horrifying reason why flights were grounded for five days."
So when did this happen? It looks dark so it must have been late last night. Perhaps one of the first planes to land in the UK after the lifting of the no-fly-zone? No...
"The images are part of a gripping TV reconstruction...of a near disaster ...in 1982."
Unsurprisingly, the Daily Star was swiftly removed from newstands and shops at UK airports, faster than you could say 'baseless and irresponsible scaremongering'. If they've any sense, said retailers won't bother taking it back again tomorrow.
But if it's going to go this route with its 'news', surely the Daily Star could have managed better than this.
After all, the plot of Independence Day, for example, would have been far more frightening ('The Moment Aliens Attacked Earth'), so why didn't they just pretend that had happened instead? The answer of course is because that wouldn't be preying callously upon the very real fears of nervous air passengers in the name of a disgraceful "exclusive", which in this instance means "a story no other paper would dare run on moral or professional grounds".
| |
|
TheMediaBlog's own variation on the meme chronicled Hitler's chagrin on missing the delivery of his favourite newspaper: the Daily Mail. And sure enough, the video has been removed with the message "This video contains content from Constantin film, who has blocked it on copyright grounds."
With so many parodied versions of Downfall in existence (and as Shane Richmond points out), it may be impossible for Constantin Film to block all of them. And like Rick Astley's record label getting sniffy about the use of his video in the Rickrolling trend, this news further highlights the widening gulf between the freedom of data online, and the often archaic laws of entertainment copyright.
| |
|
Here at the TheMediaBlog.co.uk we are running a survey into readers' perceptions of what bias may exist in the UK media as we approach the General Election. Please take one minute of your time to answer this survey and let us know your thoughts.
Click here to take the survey
We understand all surveys such as this are flawed in their own way, however, we hope by gaining enough responses, we will at least be able to spark wider discussion on this issue. The findings will in no way be used to support, comment or reflect upon the success or failure of any particular party, or its campaigning and TheMediaBlog.co.uk will not gather any personal information. Respondents can only take the survey once.
| |
|
You may have seen this yourself on the BBC 10 o'clock news last night. At first glance it is an innocuous if slightly unusual piece of video editing - a gratuitous cut-away shot to a dog's rear-end on Watford High Street. Gratuitous that is, until you consider the all-too-obvious subliminal message the BBC is trying to convey regarding Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg (I have slowed down the key frames... continues)...
...so if you've found yourself thinking Nick Clegg is 'the dog's bollocks' - or 'the mutt's nuts' to coin a phrase - this past week, could it be down to subliminal messages likes these from the BBC?
No, of course not.
| |
|
A slightly lightweight survey here, but one I suspect sub editors in particular may feel brings them some vindication.
"The Spelling Society.. tested 400 media professionals on their spelling and ...when it came to naming the top five words editors and journalists would like to simplify ‘diarrhoea’ topped the poll."
The word most got wrong however was 'embarrassed'. Fortunately editorial teams are still ahead of the wider population though. While a quarter (25 per cent) of those polled spelt 'embarrassed' wrong that was better than the 54 per cent of Britons who were tripped up by that particular word in a 2009 survey.
Hall of shame: Top five words spelt incorrectly by editorial staff:
1. Embarrassed (25% of respondents got it wrong)
2. Millennium (16%)
3. Accidentally (16%)
4. Liaison (12%)
5. Separate (11%)
However, not one of the 10 words tested by the Spelling Society received a 100 per cent correct rating. Even 'friend' was spelt incorrectly by some respondents, though suggestions some tabloid hacks spelt it: 'Acontactyouwillstabinthebackforastory' cannot be verified.
Asked which words they feel least confident spelling, respondents said they found 'diarrhoea' most troublesome. 'Liaison', 'accommodation' and 'necessary' were also potential banana skins.
| |
|
UK bookmaker Ladbrokes is clearly keen to cash in on the General Election and capture its share of the betting market blossoming around this 'too-close-to-call' contest. The company has commissioned Alison Jackson, made famous by 'candid' shots of celebrity look-a-likes, for a series of pre-election videos. In the first, Tony Blair is captured popping into his local bookies... (we'll not spoil the plot twist)
It's a nice idea and provides a little levity and content for the UK media. Expect to see this do the rounds.
| |
|
The only problem is, the mums' poll they are trumpeting actually shows the complete opposite of the headline ...
Here's the story from yesterday, headlined "Cam winning battle for mums":
We've seen these numbers before somewhere ...DAVID Cameron is winning the ferocious battle to woo Britain’s mothers — who hold the key to election victory.
The Tories have stormed into a whopping 10 point lead over Labour in a poll of 4,000 mums by parenting website Netmums.
An impressive 33.7 per cent plan to vote Tory, compared to 24.1 per cent Labour and 15.8 per cent Lib Dem.
But here's a Guardian story from 4 April about a, er, Netmums poll of 3,000 mothers:
The results saw 34% saying they intended to vote Tory, 24% who intended to vote Labour and 16% for the Liberal Democrats.
So, no change in the percentages for any of the parties in two weeks.
Which either means the figures haven't shifted - so Cam isn't storming anywhere but just treading water - or the News of the World has recycled a two-week old news story from the Guardian as current news. Surely not.
Actually, we saw them even before that ...
But to makes things worse, it turns out that the figures for the Tories haven't actually changed in three months.
Here are the results for the Netmums survey for January:
No change for the %s for the Conservatives and Lib Dems ... (The Sun reported those figures, so it's not as if the News of the World didn't know about them).
What the figures really show
The actual conclusion is that, in these Netmums polls:
And none of this matters anyway, as these polls aren't representative of anyone.
Fortunately the NOTW's readers feel the same way about it trying to persuade us that unscientific online polls are in any way meaningful - and about it drawing idiotic conclusions that have no basis in the numbers. Here's a reader's comment from yesterday's story:
"If these figures are repeated across the country, Mr Cameron will clinch victory in many of the key marginals that will decide the outcome of the election."
But they won't be because this isn't a proper opinion poll. It is a totally unrepresentative sample. You really must try harder. Real opinion polls show Cameron is on the slide.
And shame on Netmums for letting the NoTW publish this story - and even tweeting about it - when they must have known all this.You are just clutching at straws as Cameron goes down the pan. And you know it.
| |
|
Pundits, journalists and news reporters tried hard to talk in professional terms about David Cameron's poor showing in the UK's first 'Leaders Debate' but some critics were slightly less subtle. ITV may well be wishing it had read more carefully the Tweets and Facebook updates it shared with the world:
1. Let's see what people are saying on
Facebook about the Leaders Debate...
2. This one says 'Cameron - you're a first class... oh'
3. Is there any chance you didn't see that?
| |
|
"Part of the Daily Telegraph's website has been hacked, apparently by people in Romania who were aggrieved at its identification of "gypsies" and "Romanians", ...with a picture of a Romanian flag, some comments in Romanian and the remark in English at the bottom that "Guess what, gypsies aren't romanians, morons."
But this digital smash and grab was no simple website defacement. The hackers also took time to criticise the wider British media for "broadcasting shitty TV programs like Top Gear".
Fair point.
It's unlikely Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson has ever lost much sleep though over the opinions of either Romanians or gypsies, but if he has taken offence he can this week console himself with the fact he's been voted the biggest cock on television... or words to that effect.
| |
|
Hats off to the Sky News reporter who took this brief interruption so casually in his stride:
| |
|
Micro-blogging global sensation Twitter is claiming to have crashed through the 100 million user milestone. Its claims coincide with the launch of an advertising-based revenue stream in the form of promoted Tweets. Reuters reports:
At the company's first conference for Twitter developers on Wednesday, Chief Executive Officer Evan Williams said generating revenue was among the key priorities going forward -- a change of tone for a firm that had previously said it focused mainly on improving the user experience.
The news may be a blow to some purists but it will come as sweet relief to any logical soul who loves the service but has found themselves lying awake nights thinking "...yeah, but hang on, how are they going to pay for all of this?".
If you're wondering what a promoted tweet looks like, by the way, you've clearly not searched for "coffee" on the Twitter.com site today.
Unsurprisingly Starbucks were quick to the game, buying up promoted Tweet space in relevant search results in much the same way Google Adwords works, returning paid-for results above the scrum of others.
However, even by Twitter's own best-guess, around 75 per cent of Twitter traffic is off-site now, via API-driven applications such as Tweetdeck or Twitterific where users are far less likely to ever come across a promoted Tweet.
So, it's unlikely promoted Tweets will ever provide enough revenue, or see enough search traffic, on their own and we should expect this to be only the first step towards multiple structured revenue streams for Twitter. Clearly, it will still have more to do to generate the kind of revenue an audience of 100 million should create. But as any online publisher will tell you - as opposed to the traditional publishers heading in the other direction towards paywalls - better to have an audience looking for a business model than a business model looking for an audience.
| |
|
The Daily Mail is well known for its position of distrust towards all things 'internet'. But controversial columnist Richard Littlejohn appeared to have a particular point to prove this week. In his latest column, Littlejohn wrote:
Frankly, I don't hold with blogging, or Twittering. If I've got something to say, it'll be in this column.
Surely there was little doubt, so why this admission? Could it be something to do with somebody posing as Littlejohn on Twitter (@Twittlejohn) these past two weeks? His apparent imposter's mix of Tweets has left many guessing about the account's author or even its potential authenticity, while some got in quick with a barrage of four-letter abuse just in case it was the real Littlejohn.
Others have attributed their confusion to something called 'Poe's Law' which states: "It is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."
@Twittlejohn's Top 10 Tweets
1. Oh dear. Just got totally carried away and ate three walnut whips
3. No fizzy Euro lager for me, I'm very much a bitter man
5. Wouldn't be surprised if it was Eurocrats who insisted on letting proper nouns into Scrabble...What do I get for 'Albanians' on a triple benefit score?
| |
|
1. The tabloid guide to Rooney's injury
3. Ryanair misses flaw in journo 'repossession' stunt
4. ...did he really just say that?
5. Twitter crowd redresses #DEBill balance
6. Why #AskTheChancellors left me cold
7. Sophie Dahl may have her knockers...
8. The cruel sport of the Grand National...
9. Wanted: Prime Minister, must have GSOH, relevant experience a plus
| |
|
