Technorati tags: Web 2.0, PR, Blogs, Websites, Public Relations, Marketing, Advertising, Media
GD Star Rating
loading...
loading...
Last updated by at .
Pick of the Orchard 6.27.06
Fox News Throws Everything Under the Kitchen Sink at Democrats
While we’re discussing Fox News silliness, we direct your attention to a nice piece written by Manning Pynn of the Orlando Sentinel. Pynn was responding to readers who wondered why the Sentinel hadn’t reported on Rick Santorum’s recent “discovery” of WMD in Iraq. After all, it had been the day’s top story on Fox News.
Wrote Pynn:
Representatives of three intelligence agencies, speaking anonymously, explained Thursday that the weapons — found individually, in pairs or in small caches during the past couple of years — were manufactured before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and that there was no evidence of chemical munitions made after that date.
Although the report states, “chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal,” David Kay, who led the U.S. weapons hunt in Iraq in 2003 and 2004, told The Associated Press, “It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point.”
(Via Romenesko)
GD Star Rating
loading...
loading...
Verbal Clues That a Reporter Doesn’t Like You
Here are two:
1. When you tell a reporter you can’t comment on a story, the reporter has several options for how to present that response to his or her audience.
a. “Spokesman O.R. Chard said the company could not comment on pending litigation.” (Seems reasonable enough.)
b. “The company declined to comment.” (Begs explanation, but fairly neutral.)
c. “The company refused to comment.” (Hmmm … looks like the reporter doesn’t like you.)
2. When you give your company or client’s point of view on an issue, the reporter also has several options:
a. “Spokesman O.R. Chard said that the company had done nothing wrong.” (Neutral.)
b. “Spokesman O.R. Chard insisted that the company had done nothing wrong.” (Bad.)
c. “Spokesman O.R. Chard claimed that the company had done nothing wrong.” (Worse.)
When you’re reading, watching or listening to the news, look out for these words. They’ll tip you off to the journalist’s true feelings about the story — and the company you represent.
Technorati tags: PR, Public Relations, Marketing
GD Star Rating
loading...
loading...
US Weekly: Fair and Balanced Britney Coverage
In reading the celebrity rags after Cathy tosses them on the nightstand, we’ve come upon a media battle as politically charged as the daily dust-up between Fox News Channel and CNN.
Only in this case, it’s not about right vs. left, Republican vs. Democrat, anti-abortion vs. pro-choice.
It’s about anti-Britney vs. pro-Britney.
US Weekly is in the role of Fox News — all mean-spirited anti-Britney-ness, in the same way that FNC is relentlessly anti-Democratic.
People is in the role of its Time Warner cousin CNN — more empathetic to the plight of Britney (the Democrats) and willing to report an occasional positive story.
Just check the June 26 issues of both pubs (the first one after Britney’s interview with Matt Lauer) to see the extent of this political divide:
People
Headline: Britney: “I Know I’m a Good Mom”
Subhead: In a tearful interview with Matt Lauer, Britney Spears defends her marriage and parenting skills and blames the paparazzi for making her an “emotional wreck.”
Description of Britney’s pre-interview stroll with husband and baby: “Kevin would talk to Sean and then break out into a song, making up the lyrics as he went along,” says a witness. “It made Britney laugh.” At one point, Spears leaned in and kissed her husband on the mouth, with Sean snuggled in between them like a big baby sandwich.
Choice excerpt: When Lauer pointed out a magazine photo caption that said, “Oops, No. 3,” Spears responded, “There will be an ‘Oops, No. 100.’ There’ll be plenty more oopses. I’m not perfect — I’m human.”
US Weekly
Headline: “I’m an Emotional Wreck”
Subhead: In a new Dateline NBC interview, a stressed Britney Spears defends her husband. But is she being totally truthful?
Description of Britney’s pre-interview stroll with husband and baby: The moment seemed a little too picture-perfect. Was it a casual outing or calculated image control?
Choice excerpt: Cry her a river! In 2003, Spears sobbed “strong, Britney,” when Diane Sawyer inquired about her “rough year” and split with Justin Timberlake. On Dateline, she gets misty about her critics. “You have to realize that we’re people.”
But US Weekly was only warming up for its full-scale assault on Britney’s Lauer interview in the July 3 edition, which is just hitting the stands.
This one includes the following features:
1. An US poll (of 100 people) in which 60 percent of respondents say that Britney was not telling the truth in the Lauer interview.
2. A second US poll (of 100 people) in which 87 percent of respondents say they “respect Britney less” after the interview.
3. A two-page story in which “body-language experts” and others break down the interview and conclude, on balance, that she’s lying.
Hmmm. Two straight weeks of bashing Britney’s legitimate complaints about unfair coverage and paparazzi harassment from publications like US Weekly? Wethinks US protests too much.
US Weekly‘s anti-Britney campaign is nothing new. It’s relentless — every week — with nary a nice word said about the woman. Obviously there is an audience for this, just as there is an audience for the hate-filled stylings of Hannity, O’Reilly, et al.
If we spewed that kind of negativity every day, we’d be filled with self-loathing. Oh, well — to each his own, we guess.
Technorati tags: PR, Public Relations, Britney
GD Star Rating
loading...
loading...
What Fox News Really Needs: Democrats in Power
From Broadcasting & Cable:
Here’s another theory:
The Fox News Channel has been defending the Bush administration for six years now. Fox’s preferred political party also controls both houses of Congress. It’s like watching Will and Grace in its last season or two — comfortingly consistent, but no longer compelling.
What Fox News really needs is a major change in the show to stir things up — like when Lucy and Ricky went to Hollywood, or when the “Tailies” joined the gang on Lost.
In this case, the best thing for Fox’s ratings would be Democratic victories in 2006 and — even better for them — 2008. That would ensure that Hannity et al could stop blaming silly targets like the ACLU for the quagmire in Iraq and could start pointing fingers at people who actually have power.
Trust us, Roger: Fox’s ratings would go through the roof.
loading...