Hot topics click link for more
A Moscow district court dropped charges against free-lance reporter Alec Luhn, according to Novaya Gazeta (June 6). On assignment for UK newspaper The Guardian, Mr. Luhn was arrested and detained March 26th while covering a protest march organized by opposition leader Alexei Navalny. Presenting valid accreditation and visa documents had no effect on the arresting officers. Charges were for “participating in a public event” that was unauthorized. Mr. Navalny, a presumed candidate in the 2018 Russian presidential election, was also arrested.
Dismissing the charges, the judge said officers involved may have been confused. It is common in Russia for authorities to scoop up media workers along with random citizens during demonstrations. Mr. Luhn, a US passport holder, has contributed to several media outlets - including the New York Times and Vice - from Russia for several years. (See more about press freedom here)
Half way around the world another Guardian reporter received a rather unequivocal apology after being slammed to the ground by an angry politician. On the campaign trail in the western US state of Montana last month candidate Greg Gianforte, seeking a seat in the House of Representatives, angered by one of those inconvenient questions, “body slammed” Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs. Injuries were sufficient for the local sheriff to charge Gianforte with simply assault. Gianforte, a Republican, won the election. (See more about elections and media here)
“My physical response to your legitimate question was unprofessional, unacceptable, and unlawful,” submitted Mr. Gianforte in writing. “As both a candidate for office and a public official, I should be held to a high standard in my interactions with the press and the public. My treatment of you did not meet that standard.”
Mr. Gianforte also promised to contribute US$50,000 to the Committee to Protect Journalists. He still faces that assault charge and, possibly, investigation by the Congressional Ethics Office. Ben Jacobs’ eyeglasses, busted in the fracas, are now on display at the Newseum in Washington DC.
The diplomatic row between Qatar and Saudi Arabia has engulfed, unsurprisingly, TV broadcaster Al-Jazeera. The Saudi Ministry of Culture and Information ordered closed the Al Jazeera Media Network bureau in Riyadh, reported Al Arabiya (June 5). Licenses to broadcast inside Saudi Arabia have also been revoked, transmission spontaneously replaced with Al Arabiya.
Al Jazeera is owned by the Qatari government. Its primary Arabic language competitor is Al Arabiya, which is owned by the Saudi royal family through Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC), based in Dubai (UAE). Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE and others suddenly broke diplomatic relations with Qatar citing support for Sunni Islamic fundamentalists including the Muslim Brotherhood. The government of Kuwait is acting as an intermediary in negotiations to end the diplomatic and economic impasse. (See more about media in the Middle East and North Africa here)
"Qatar's Emir first gesture of good will likely be the shutting of Al Jazeera TV network entirely, which could happen in months if not weeks," suggested Sultan Al Qassemi on social media, named as “a prominent regional commentator” when quoted by CNN (June 5). The UAE also pulled Al Jazeera and Qatari-owned BeIN Sports from national networks. BeIN Sports was separated from Al Jazeera Media Network in 2013.
The online Turkish-language Al Jazeera Türk closed at the beginning of May citing “labor optimization efforts,” reported Daily Sabah (May 3). Al Jazeera America was shuttered in April 2016 after failing to secure sufficient cable coverage. Al Jazeera’s Arabic language audience is estimated at about 40 million.
More attached to the smallest screen than ever media consumers have chosen their new best friend. Smartphones give people everything they want, even things they didn’t know they wanted. It’s the purest form of attachment, better than having a dog, a very big dog.
“Mobile technology has thoroughly disrupted consumers’ media habits in less than a decade,” said Zenith Media forecasting chief Jonathan Barnard, quoted by World Screen (May 31). Zenith just published its Media Consumption Forecasts report, filled with many scary thoughts. “The pace of change is now slowing, at least until the next disruptive technology takes off.”
Examining the entire world, arguably a challenge, traditional TV is viewed 170 minutes per day. “We expect it to remain dominant for the rest of our forecast period,” said the report. Internet consumption takes up 140 minutes of everybody’s day, on average, but that will converge on TV time within the next couple of years. Along with that, traditional media consumption - meaning every medium existing before the web - has fallen in the last five years to 316 minutes per day from 364 minutes, a bit more than 15%.
With that in mind, total media consumption is rising, to 456 minutes from 411 minutes over the same period. The difference, of course, is mobile and a shift by traditional providers to new media platforms. By 2019, says the Zenith report, a bit more than a quarter of time spent with media (26%) will be through mobile devices. Since 2010 mobile usage, globally, has jumped from 10 minutes a day to 122 minutes. This explains the sharp increase in stumbling into Millennials while walking the very large dog. (See more about mobile media here)
A separate study by UK technology measurement researcher Verto Analytics, released June 1, revealed sharp content preferences among device users. Smartphone users spend more time with lifestyle content, health and fitness to food, sports and social media. Property sites - like finding a place to live - are big with tablet users. More complicated matter - from dealing with customer service and government agencies to news and weather - need a bigger screen and, it seems, a place to sit down so PCs are most used. We are awash in relevant data about media usage.
Political advertising is a huge gift to media outlets, where allowed. Donors to campaigns expect a good portion of their largess to go for spreading the message as far and wide as possible. In many countries there are restrictions, limits to campaign length widely enforces. In some there are few if any limits.
As part a broad review of the Law on Radio and Television (LRTV) the Swiss government is considering a change in restrictions to political advertising on privately owned radio and television channels. Last week the lower house of the Swiss parliament (National Council) voted against lifting restrictions on political and religious advertising for privately owned broadcasters. Public broadcaster SSR-SRG runs no paid political advertising and is regulated separately. But newspapers take all they can get. Then there are the outdoor and direct mail ads. The measure will likely go to the upper house but success there is in question. (See more about elections and media here)
National Councillor Thomas Matter of the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) argued that Swiss broadcasters are at a disadvantage because online advertising, so far, is not restricted. “We have already debated the nonsense of this of this regulation,” he said, quoted by the Swiss Parliament website (May 31). “The trend is that online media consumption is constantly expanding. I regard it as almost (in the national interest) to offer private media providers better economic prospects, to secure their longer-term survival, and thus to take account competition in the broadcasting sector.” The SVP drew international notoriety for outdoor ad campaigns viewed as racist.
“It is precisely to prevent citizens from being subjected to advertising hype on private media that the ban is justified,” said Social Democrat Jacques-André Maire. “Indeed, the objectivity of information… which would allow citizens to form an informed opinion with full freedom and independence would be questioned by media where the advertising spots for political or religious propaganda would be omnipresent.” A majority in the National Council - 94 to 83 - rejected the initiative.
|
