Hot topics click link for more
Publishers are notoriously slow in recognizing trends, even slower to act on them. They were lost for decades in digital hesitancy even as media buyers gave preference to bot placement. Every new possibility was resisted until the venture capital people bought them out and sold off the parts for scrap. Suddenly, lights came on.
The New York Times Company, publisher of the namesake US newspaper, acquired online game sensation Wordle at the end of January. Media watchers the world over haven’t stopped talking about it. You can just hear the chuckles from NYT Company executives. The reported price tag was the “low seven figures,” which gave the media watchers even more to Zoom on. Earlier in January the NYT Company paid US$1 billion for The Athletic, an online sports portal network. The Wordle acquisition effectively pushed chatter about The Athletic, a much bigger deal, to the margins. (See more about publishing here)
For those who have never heard of Wordle, just breathe deep. It is, very briefly, a word game and a clever one at that. It was created by Josh Wardle and was made public last October. It boggles the mind that the crusty old NYT Company would have even heard of Wordle in such a short time. To be fair, the NYT has created and published word games for decades. Crossword puzzles were considered "a primitive form of mental exercise” by insiders of the day.
And, meant to be inevitable, Wordle has migrated to the NYT games page. That was quick, too. There were a few bugs, like retaining scores - very important to Wordle players. Critics - “there are a few, too few to mention” - are focused on whether or not a paywall will arrive. The NYT says no, for now. Wordle is already available in dozens of languages, including Urdu for word game fans in Pakistan.
“It’s just a game that’s fun,” said Mr. Wardle. “I'd be lying if I said this hasn't been overwhelming.”
A behavioral trait that irritates tyrants most of all is the tendency of people, commonly referred to as audiences, to seek out consequential information sources. The obverse, of course, is the relentless draw of fake news and conspiracy theories, often at the hand of those aforementioned tyrants. A big lesson for authoritarian regimes in all corners of the world is the difficulty quashing undesirable information from sources deemed reliable by so many.
UK international news provider BBC World Service (BBCWS) is asking the United Nations (UN) to condemn the rulers of Iran for “unacceptable treatment of our BBC News Persian colleagues,” said BBCWS director Liliane Landor, in a statement at the Third Global Conference for Media Freedom held in Tallinn, Estonia (February 10). “There have been escalating actions and threats, including an asset freeze which penalises the journalists and their families, online harassment, gendered attacks on women journalists and death threats. It must stop.” (See more about international broadcasting here)
BBCWS has gone down that road two times before since 2017. BBC News Persian, formerly known as BBC Persian Service, is officially banned in Iran and claims 13 million listeners and viewers in Iran, 19 million Persian (Farsi) speakers worldwide. Represented by human rights lawyer Jennifer Robinson, known for defending Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, the BBCWS wants the issue kicked up to the UN Human Rights Council. (See more about the BBC here)
Iranian authorities rejected earlier BBC WS complaints lodged at the UN Human Rights Council charging the broadcaster with “false information to incite the population to overthrow the government.” Turkey’s media authority, this week, threatened to further restrict international broadcasters Deutsche Welle, Voice of America (VOA) and Euronews for their Turkish-language programs. Russian authorities expelled Deutsche Welle Russian service staff and forced the Moscow bureau to close.
Pressures on international media outlets from authoritarian governments is interminable. Dictators, we have learned, really hate criticism. Just as much, they cannot tolerate views inconsistent with their championed beliefs. Keeping the world out is a difficult but necessary pursuit, they say.
A demand has gone out from Turkey’s media regulator Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTUK) to German international broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW), US international broadcaster Voice of America (VOA) and privately-owned news broadcaster Euronews to obtain operating licenses or risk having their platform blocked, reported Reuters (February 9). The targets are Turkish language broadcasts. The order referenced the August 2019 law giving RTUK authority over all internet content following a government report alleged international broadcasters were “unfair to the Turkish government.” (See more about media in Turkey here)
The RTUK board is controlled by Justice and Development Party (AKP) members, the political party of Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan. “This attempt to suppress international media too is doomed to fail,” party RTUK board member Okan Konuralp, appointed by the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP). “After the national media, it is the turn of international news sites to be supervised and muzzled,” said another opposition lawmaker Ilhan Tasci, also appointed by CHP. (See more about press/media freedom here)
Other than the an official statement, AK party members of the RTUK board have mostly remained silent. RTÜK vice president Ibrahim Uslu simply confirmed, to news agency DPA, that the demand had been sent, would be officially published within seven days and has nothing to do with censorship “but is part of technical measures.” The vast majority of Turkish media, 90% by estimates from international media advocates, is controlled by the AKP directly or friends thereof.
International broadcasting is either having the best of times or the worst. Interest in news and views from far away places has never been higher. After all people haven’t been traveling so stories from afar are popular. Call it vicarious living. On the other side some in those distant lands truly resent being under the journalistic microscope.
Take the recent spat between the Russian Federation and the German government. Russian propaganda outlet RT, formerly known as Russia Today, was denied operating authority in Germany for being, well, unlicensed. The Russian Foreign Ministry replied by closing the offices of German international broadcaster Deutsche Welle, well-regarded, and expelling staff.
For several years news outlets, foreign and domestic, along with individuals have been declared “foreign agents” by the Russian Foreign Ministry or Justice Ministry. This is, essentially, formal notice that prying eyes are watching but falls short of expulsion. This changed last year when the work and residence permits UK public broadcaster BBC Moscow correspondent Sarah Rainsford were not renewed. The UK government has a problem with RT, just like the German government. Add to that the US government. (See more about international broadcasting here)
International news organizations regularly employ scores of local nationals to fill a variety of positions not limited to the editorial side. The scope of this became apparent to all with the mass exodus from Kabul last August. News outlets scrambled to evacuate local employees.
BBC News Russia, formerly BBC Russian Service, employs about 150 Russian nationals, half have been designated “foreign agents,” noted Russian exile news portal Meduza (February 8), quoting BBC Russian Service, which surveyed the group. Just under half of those registered as “foreign agents” left Russia or plan to leave. Some left before being listed “under pressure from Russian authorities.” According to the internal survey, “most of those who left (did) not cut off their way to return.”
One who left is investigative reporter Andrei Zakharov, who relocated to London. On the “foreign agents” list since last October, he began to notice "rather unprecedented surveillance,” he said to RFE/RL (December 27). "It is not yet clear what the surveillance was connected with: my being designated as a 'foreign agent' or maybe my reporting on hackers, which I did together with my British colleagues.”
Campaigns for parliamentary elections in Hungary are set to begin officially at the end of this week. Elections will be held April 3. Hungarian journalists union MUOSZ noted that political parties are already “in action,” reported media news portal Media1 hu (February 7). Some independent news organizations have already found Fidesz party pre-campaign rallies off limits to their reporters.
"MUOSZ draws the attention of those responsible for the events to the fact that banning media employees is against the law,” said its statement. "When voters decide on the country's future, it is particularly important in parliamentary elections that no one's right to be informed is violated so that the democratic public can function legally.” In one Budapest district a reporter for news portal 444 hu was turned away from a previously announced Fidesz-sponsored “forum” claiming the event was “private.” When a RTL hu reporter asked about the “exclusion” a party official claimed “lack of space” and “epidemiological considerations.” Fidesz is the right-wing, xenophobic and nativist political party of Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban. (See more about media in Hungary here)
Based on recommendations from a January visit to Hungary the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) intends sending a “full observation mission” about a month before the voting, reported Hungary Today (February 7). This would mean augmenting its professional election observer staff with about 200 additional sets of eyes. The OSCE noted the potential for voter intimidation and vote-buying “particularly in rural areas,” including “voter tourism.”Problematic media coverage was also cited by the recommendation, which noted a lack of available billboard space. (See more about elections and media here)
“OSCE staff will have the chance to witness a free, fair, and democratic election,” observed Hungarian Justice Minister Judit Varga on the imminent arrival of OSCE monitors, quoted by news portal 24 hu (February 7), ”but only if they do not attempt to interfere in the Hungarian elections during their mission.” She added: “The left-wing is already complaining.” Government spokesperson also grumbled: “Dark warnings about a contested election result and a rigged election are merely advocacy journalism at work.” The OSCE sent a “limited” election monitoring mission in 2018.
|
