Hot topics click link for more
Investigative reporting collectives have gained relative prominence over recent years. Some are rather ad-hoc; news outlets pulling together resources for big stories. Others have been more formalized. Relationships notwithstanding, these groups have expanded the influence of investigative reporting.
The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) is suspending work in the Russian Federation to protect local collaborators, said co-founder Drew Sullivan in a statement posted to the group’s website< (September 15). “This does not mean we will stop covering the large-scale corruption in this country. We simply understand that the government, as it has always done, will sanction their citizens for collaborating with us.” (See more about investigative reporting here)
In recent days, OCCRP released inconvenient details about suspected corrupt compromises regarding Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov. That report (September 14) was prepared in association with Russian investigative portal iStories, which was added to the infamous “foreign agent” list. OCCRP operations in Russia were halted to “protect journalists amid the Kremlin’s campaign against independent journalism,” said the statement. "Now our work in Russia can do local journalists more harm than good.” (See more about media in the Russian Federation here)
OCCRP was formed in 2006 by Mr. Sullivan and Romanian investigative reporter Paul Radu focusing on Eastern European corruption, later expanding elsewhere. The group either led or participated in several well-known corruption investigations; Panama Papers (2016) and Paradise Papers (2017) and Pegasus Project (2020) that implicated an Israeli cybersecurity firm. OCCRP’s Russian Federation employees were offered relocation outside the country. Those who would not or could not were offered compensation and employment assistance.
Big stumbles have plagued the media world as often as other areas, just more visibly. Along with bad ideas and poor timing, major egos and predisposition for risk, often with other people’s money, contribute to sending media projects to the boneyard. The stories are quickly forgotten.
Former UK newspaper columnist and broadcast political reporter Andrew Neil removed himself this week (September 13) from daily operations of GB News, where he had been chairman, principal promoter and, briefly, a talkshow host. GB News is a free-to-air TV channel established in 2019 by Andrew Cole and Mark Schneider, associates of Liberty Media chairman and principal owner John Malone. Their company received a broadcast license in January 2020 and by September had hired Mr. Neil as chairman on the expiry of his BBC contract. After securing funding, largely but not exclusively from Mr. Malone, a notable supporter of right-wing causes, a hiring spree ensued, facilities acquired and all the usual efforts, including promotion. It hit the airwaves in mid-June this year. (See more about media in the UK here)
Mr. Neil attended the launch and presented a daily talkshow 8 times then announced he would be taking a summer break, exiting for France. Reviews of GB News, even from right-wing media, were vicious. The Times (September 13), principally controlled by the Murdoch family, blamed an "increasingly populist agenda… polarising the newsroom.” The channel was “whingeing its paranoid way towards oblivion,” said The Independent (September 13). Advertisers vanished without prompting. After a month UK TV measurement agency BARB found “zero viewers.”
"I wish GB News well in continuing to fulfil its founding promise and mission to reach audiences currently underserved by existing news broadcasters,” said Mr Neil in a statement (September 13). For its part GB News hired infamous Brexit promoter Nigel Farage as a replacement for the on-air duties.
Money means a lot to TV broadcasters. Actually, money means everything. In recent years, the quickest route to big ratings in some countries, hence big ad money, has been pandering to angry, fearful right-wing viewers. After all, they need a daily dose of dystopia. Opportunistic broadcasters try to manage outrage with cashflow. There are obvious limits.
On Monday (September 13) French broadcaster Canal+ severed its relationship with far-right talk-show host Eric Zemmour, who had appeared regularly on right-wing “opinion” channel CNews. Media regulator CSA last week curbed M Zemmour for playing political candidate a bit too well, running foul of strict media campaigning rules. Canal+ executives had little choice but showing M Zemmour the door. (See earlier story on M Zemmour and Canal+ here)
We "never intervene in the programming of the channels,” said CSA president Roch-Olivier Maistre to public broadcaster France Info (September 13). "The channels have total editorial freedom to invite the personalities of their choice at the time of their choice. They simply have to ensure the balance between each other according to the political weight.” Therein lies the rub: CNews would be compelled to provide broadcast time to other candidates. (See more about elections and media here)
"I am very sad about it,” said M Zemmour on CNews (September 13). He has teased entering the race for the French presidency, which formally takes place next year. Previously the CSA sanctioned CNews with a €200,000 fine
for “incitement to hatred and violence” from M Zemmour. Several social media portals removed M Zemmour for violating conditions of service regarding hate speech.
Two years into the global coronavirus pandemic doubts about the effects on the media world only remain with the fictionally inclined. The media world - all facets - have been turned upside down. Much of the disruption was already on the way. Nobody could have foretold the lockdowns, work from home or work not at all.
Streaming video had been attracting interest for several years. Some consumers liked staying at home or found scheduled TV fare wanting. Film and series producers were happy to have another revenue source. When the pandemic hit hard binge watching wasn’t just something to do on the weekends it was all day everyday. To attract subscription fee payers, streaming providers had to crank out more, sometimes hits and sometimes not, to be delivered straight to the home device. Theater (cinema) operators faced the end of the world.
In short order every producer, broadcaster and internet service provider was in the streaming business. Of course, Netflix has had a 20 year lead. The Walt Disney Company, under then-chairman Bob Iger and with a strong balance sheet, plotted a path. Most others of a similar profile - producer and distributor - fell all over themselves. There were others; like Amazon Prime Video, originally an online retail DVD seller, and Apple TV+ from< the well-known tech company. (See more about The Walt Disney Company here)
Last week (September 10) The Walt Disney Company announced a major gift to theater operators. Just in time for the year end holidays, all of its remaining 2021 releases will open exclusively in theaters before migrating to streaming service Disney+ after 45 days, mostly. Once upon a time that window was 90 days. More recently new titles were simultaneously released on streaming services and in theaters. Because Disney is Disney all producers and distributors are watching.
"As confidence in moviegoing continues to improve, we look forward to entertaining audiences in theaters, while maintaining the flexibility to give our Disney+ subscribers the gift of Encanto this holiday season," said Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution chairman Kareem Daniel in a statement. Encanto is the highly anticipated an animated fantasy with music by acclaimed writer and performer Lin-Manuel Miranda. It will be exclusively available in theaters from November 24th then on Disney+ for Christmas Eve.
Televised debates preceding elections are a big part of political discourse. Politicians and political parties invest in consultants, free advertising being priceless. Pundits handicap each performance. Polls are taken before and after. Broadcasters promote each and every one. Citizens tune-in, sometimes. (See more about elections and media here)
A fixture of parliamentary elections in Norway are the party leaders’ debates. Obviously, the next prime minister is selected on results of these elections, the final day of voting held Monday, September 13. Coalition governments are common. The previous elections for the unicameral legislature - the Storting - was held in 2017. The final political leaders’ debate of the season was held Sunday, September 12th.
On the morning after the final debate - and the final voting day - several top political and media advisors gathered for the Politisk Kvarter (Political Quarter) program on public broadcaster NRK. They were asked, noted media portal Journalisten (September 13), if the country has gone overboard with political debates. Too much work, suggested some of the advisors. (See more about media in Norway here)
“It's important that we put up for debates, of course a prime minister should, but television viewing has plunged, television media barely reaches people under the age of 60,” said press spokesperson for Prime Minister Erna Solberg Rune Alstadsæter. “Nevertheless, the campaigns are tied up, for our part in party leaders' and prime ministerial debates, which means that you have to organize every week after them. The 2021 election campaign I think is still tied up in an old medium and should have been used differently.”
|
