« May 2010 | Main | July 2010 »
How journalism works: First, see this (ignoring the bit on the right about it being a parody):
Next, write this (ignoring the bit about it not being true):
Then, explain to your editor that you didn't need a second source because you heard it straight from the CEO himself... sort of, before hearing the dim and distant sound of a penny dropping.
Thanks to everybody who has flagged this today.
The final series of Big Brother is underway. You may have missed it. Gone is the blanket tabloid coverage of this silly season staple and gone is any sense that this is a media phenomenon that we should now know or care about.
Beyond a well-documented decline in audience figures, look at the steady decline in internet searches for "Big Brother" over the past six years (top blue line, below). The summertime spikes have become barely ripples in the interminable flatlining of the show.
Don't be fooled by the apparent increase in media coverage through late 2008 and 2009 (bottom blue line). Little of that coverage was about "Big Brother" per se, it was about Jade Goody, her battle with cancer and her subsequent death. Goody herself had long since become bigger than the show which didn't so much launch her career, but more belch her up into the popular consciousness.
Compare - for the purposes of arbitrary context - the online news coverage of vuvuzelas in the UK (red line below), versus that of Big Brother (blue line). Only one has been a summertime phenomenon that's got people talking at the bars, bus stops, hairdressers and watercoolers of Britain.
It's appropriate that the last series of Big Brother has a fairground theme, reminding me as it does that this once great heavyweight of the summer schedules is now reduced to the punchdrunk equivalent of plying its trade ingloriously on the sideshow circuit - like a washed up pugilist fighting kangaroos and allcomers for bed and board.
And how will the show be remembered; this disruptive format which fascinated media watchers, audiences and psychologists back in 2000 when it burst onto our screens?
Will it be remembered for its broadcast innovations, being the first genuinely multi-platform piece of UK programming, bridging as it did web and analogue TV.
No. Naturally it will be remembered for its most shocking moments, top among which - according to 5,000 readers of entertainment website DigitalSpy - was a female contestant in BB6, called Kinga Karolczak, masturbating with a wine bottle. That lowlight was apparently picked by 41.5 per cent of respondents. That compares to just 16 per cent who picked the racism row which erupted around Jade Goody and Bollywood star Shilpa Shetty and seemed a far more significant cultural milestone at the time than some desperate wannabe giving 'screw top bottles' a whole new meaning. Clearly not.
And that is the ultimate epitaph for Big Brother. Even the bits which seemed in some way significant ultimately weren't.
Sometimes a photo and a headline are simply too good a tabloid opportunity to pass up, even if the editors must have known their nearest rival was almost certainly going to run with the same (and that it wouldn't be the first time this month these two publishers had shared a front page).
Of course there is nothing within the German's behaviour to suggest they are "terrified", more I would say they are observing some common sense measures and staying within the rules which are no doubt sensibly enforced on the safari. (And let's not dwell on the three lions' body language as they slope off).
The Star meanwhile...
The BBC and ITV have done their clumsy best to further the cause of cultural insensitivity during this World Cup but it really takes the full power of the tabloid press and a clash with "The Old Enemy"TM to bring out the worst kind of casual racism in the media.
Yesterday there was the Daily Mail's '11 Germans who wouldn't have been German if 'The Kaiser' had his way' and The Sun's assortment of lazy cliches, stereotyping and rather forced mentioning of the war... with very little intention of 'getting away with it'.
In fact being a tabloid editor around any England v Germany clash is really rather simple. It seems you just need to follow a few simple steps. See how many of these you can spot in the papers this weekend:
1. Use pictures of Churchill next to witty re-writes of his speeches
2. Talk of 'putting towels down' on a) The pitch b) sun-loungers c) the World Cup d) the World
3. Ensure the word 'the' is spelled 'ze' wherever and whenever possible
4. Constantly pun on Hun (eg. Hun-Nil, Hun and dusted, Alles in Hun Der Land... etc. etc.)
5. The same with Kraut (eg. We're Kraut of the World Cup, Kraut of order... etc. etc.)
6. Invoke popular sit-coms with anti-German storylines: (eg. "Don't Panic!" "Don't Mention Ze War!")
7. Invoke popular films with anti-German storylines (eg. The Great Escape!)
8. Pun on sausages (eg. 'The Wurst Day For English Football')
9. Position comical pictures of people in lederhosen around your insightful editorial
10. Don't write 'Here' when Herr can be used instead (eg. 'Herr we go again!')
...follow those 10 simple steps and your paper practically writes itself...
Yesterday an article in Ireland’s Evening Herald produced what is probably one of the most intriguing headlines ever.
Sadly the paper's website reports the story under the duller headline of "Woman in sumo wrestler suit assaulted her ex-girlfriend in gay pub".
This picture was posted on Twitter by Will St Leger.
Interweb number crunchers Hitwise have run some interesting analysis of the traffic to and from The Times websites now the pay-wall is in place (even if the 'pay' part is yet to be enforced).
In some respects the Hitwise findings are fairly predictable. The first graph (right) shows that what has inevitably happened is the paper's daily market share has diminished considerably.
Of course it has, that was always going to happen. But what we don't know is whether this is in line with expectations at The Times who will have expected a drop. As soon as you erect any barrier to free and easy access to content promiscuous web users are going to go elsewhere, especially when that content is deemed to be fairly commoditised (who would pay to read a match report from the World Cup, or a news report about the budget, when that information is widely available elsewhere?) The paper will see further decline when the barrier becomes payment, not just registration, but at the moment this doesn't look like the kind of bloodshed some people predicted. The Times is not withering on the vine just yet.
The second piece of analysis supports that commodity notion. Where do people go when they hit the 'paywall'? To rival sites of course.
The upstream sites benefitting most from The Times' new model are unsurprisingly The Independent, The Telegraph and The Guardian. Next, interestingly, is the FT, which you might reasonably argue runs the least commoditised kinds of content in newspaper land but also has a limited registration model.
Despite what looks like a massive up-tick for some of those sites, it's worth noting the axis does deal in 0.2% incremements.
So, based on stats from ABCe what this means, in terms of actual numbers, is since The Times 'paywall' went up, its immediate rivals are adding:
- The Independent - 2,700 extra readers per day
- The Telegraph - 8,900 extra readers per day
- The Guardian - 7,200 extra readers per day
That's 'nice to have' territory, rather than anything more exciting.
So where this leaves us is with a concrete indication that the 'paywall' has had a negative effect on The Times, but not one we could confidently say anybody should be too worried about... yet. I say 'yet' because if I was working for The Times I would be worried about the way this trend could be amplified when the cash factor kicks in.
ITV's World Cup coverage is becoming more farcical by the day. First they cut to a car advert just as England were scoring what may prove their only goal of the tournament. Then there was the unfortunate incident of complimentary tickets allocated to pundit Robbie Earle turning up in the possession of some professional models(what are the chances!?) who were allegedly involved in an act of ambush marketing.
So you'd think they'd be very careful not to fall into the 'ambush marketing' trap themselves. Wouldn't you? Well, make up your own minds: here's pundit Edgar Davids shaping up for tonight's Spain v Honduras clash.
If you look carefully you might just be able to make out a subtle bit of branding for Monta Soccer's Street Soccer Tour*.
Subtle Edgar. Really subtle.
The slightly skewiff collar gives it that authentic just pulled on as the producer said "...and we're live in 5,4,3,2,1..." look.
*Davids models for Monta's range of street soccer clothing (below) and is currently participating in the aforementioned Street Soccer Tour:
Last week it was The Mirror and The News Of The World sharing the same headline, this week The News Of The World and The People are boasting the same exclusive. They can't both be right...
Sunday tabloid newspaper The People stands accused of making up every word of an allegedly fictitious interview with Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand. Here's a brief Twitter exchange between Ross and The Media Blog today:
We look forward to The People's response... surely just an innocent misunderstanding which will be easily cleared up?
I hate to fall into the "political-correctness-gone-mad" trap but honestly can't help thinking if Brazil had won a football match 4-0 they would be described as "Brilliant", France; "Fantastic", England; "Outstanding" - all very positive superlatives.
But within seconds of Germany recording a 4-0 win I was quick to pose the question on Twitter: "Who will be the first media outlet to describe Germany as "ruthless", if not "ruthlessly efficient"?"
The answer followed almost as quickly. Step forward the BBC:
I look forward to the broadcaster's coverage of "the inscrutable Japanese" tomorrow afternoon.
Q. What's worse than coming up with the same great headline as your nearest tabloid rival?
A. ...that's right, coming up with the same weak headline as your nearest tabloid rival.
ITV viewers watching England's opening game in the World Cup last night on the broadcaster's HD channel were denied the only silver lining of the match.
As the BBC rather keenly reports today, viewers of ITV 1 HD were unable to see England's opening goal, scored after just four minutes - instead they were treated to an advert for Hyundai cars, according to the Mirror.
This isn't the first time mismanagement at ITV has denied football fans a crucial goal.
Earlier this year, Channel 4 angered viewers by cutting to an episode of Come Dine With Me before they had announced the result of the photo finish from their broadcast of $20m horse race the Dubai World Cup.
