Category Archives: Media

Open mouth insert foot (repeat)

Posted on by

“I never worked for Russia”

Let those words sink in for a moment. They were not said by Paul Manafort or Michael Flynn, but by President Trump. Even knowing Trump’s disdain for the media (with the exception of Fox News), it was an extraordinary thing to say.

I am reminded back to the days of Nixon and Watergate when he quipped “I am not a crook” which, according to Time magazine, became one of the Top 10 Unfortunate Political One-Liners (others making the list was Clinton’s “”I did not have sexual relations with that woman” and George H.W. Bush’s infamous “Read my lips: no new taxes”). The line instantly caught fire and one could arguably say was the beginning of the end of the Nixon White House.

As I so often like to point out, I am not implying Trump is guilty and this not about whether or not Trump colluded with the Russians. I’ll let the Mueller team figure that out, but it’s about an American president actually having to deny they worked for a foreign and to a large degree, adversary.

Trump supporters will say it’s because the media is obsessed with the investigation (and they would be right). They will also remind you there is no direct evidence linking Trump to conspire to rig the election (and they would be right again), but Team Trump continues to step in it.

Remember these lines…

  • “Truth isn’t truth” – Rudy Giuliani
  • Spicer was giving “alternative facts” – Kellyanne Conway
  • “I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own cock” – Anthony Scaramucci

In the end, I guess it doesn’t matter what Trump or his team says. It seems most American’s fall into three categories. You support him, you hate him, or you hold your nose at what he says and hopes he keeps nominating conservative appointees.

Still, one has to wonder how long this ride can last before the train flies off the rails.

Traditional radio turns a deaf ear to streaming music

Posted on by

Bridge Ratings, who provide station-based on-demand music streaming data, released some interesting analysis. They report that traditional radio missed 40 percent of the most-streamed music by their listeners in December 2018.

According to their data, over 80 percent of Americans stream music in an average month. Unlike traditional methods of music research such as phone surveys, auditorium testing, etc., on-demand streaming accurately measures how much a song is being listened to.

Bridge Ratings points out that radio listeners who stream have different tastes than radio non-users or radio “lite-users”, but the research begs the question; could over-the-air radio stations perform better in the ratings if they play more of the music being listened to via the internet.

This chart compares each format’s “hit-delivery” with its 2017 performance…

(How to read: Urban radio missed or underplayed nearly 50% of the songs that were most-streamed by the format’s P1 or heavy listeners. Country radio missed 26%)

As anyone who has ever listened to traditional radio knows, increased commercial loads are reducing time spent listening, a key factor when calculating ratings. This increase in advertisers are causing more and more listeners to go to streaming sources for their music.

Factor in they are not hearing songs they like on the radio and you can start to see a formula for trouble. According to Bridge Ratings…

We know from our own experience over the past four years, that an increasing number of commercial radio programmers are using on-demand streaming research in some form to better-align their music playlists and to properly reflect the tastes of their listeners. Yet, there are far more programmers who do not believe in the data and do not use it either on its own or in combination with other forms of research they may be comfortable with.

It could turn out that streaming and not video will kill the radio star.

Government and social media

Posted on by

As is usually the case, the law is trying to keep up with technology. The question of what constitutes a public forum is being debated and its impact could affect everyone from your locally elected dog catcher to the president of the United States.

A case has been making its way through the courts involving Deanna Robinson and the Hunt County Sheriff’s Office. Robinson learned she had been blocked from commenting or liking posts after criticizing them on their Facebook page. This was not the first run-in Robinson has had with the agency. In 2015, Robinson was confronted by a Hunt County deputy and a Child Protective Services representative looking to remove her then, 18-month old son from the home.

The case was finally dismissed and charges were dropped, but that hasn’t stopped the bad blood between them. Robinson filed a lawsuit in Feb. 2017 where she lost the case in a North Texas trial court. She has appealed and oral arguments will be heard today in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. (There is a similar case pending in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals between President Trump and a group of citizens who have banned from his Twitter account)

The sheriff’s office contends that by blocking Robinson, they are enforcing Facebook’s conduct rules. Under the terms of agreement, Facebook states…

 Combat harmful conduct and protect and support our community:

People will only build community on Facebook if they feel safe. We employ dedicated teams around the world and develop advanced technical systems to detect misuse of our Products, harmful conduct towards others, and situations where we may be able to help support or protect our community. If we learn of content or conduct like this, we will take appropriate action – for example, offering help, removing content, blocking access to certain features, disabling an account, or contacting law enforcement. We share data with other Facebook Companies when we detect misuse or harmful conduct by someone using one of our Products.

So, can being critical of a governmental agency be considered harmful conduct? Not knowing what the exact post said could play into this decision. Context is important and if the post used obscene language, or was threatening, you could see why a person would be blocked (although you could have simply deleted or hide the comment). But, if the post just offered a negative opinion, you could argue your First Amendment rights are being violated.

In light of more and more governmental agencies turning to Facebook and Twitter to communicate with their constituents, the outcome could have far reaching implications as to the future use of social media.

Is broadcast television dying on the vine?

Posted on by

Newspapers have long been seen as a dying medium, but it may soon be joined by broadcast television. The New York Times is reporting that viewership continues to fall. Streaming services like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon are snatching up younger demos left and right.

The Wall Street Journal reported more than 1 million consumers cut the cable in the past quarter (May-Aug. 2018), and moving to streaming services so what is going on?  (Streaming services can include broadcast television and cable programming, but makes it harder to count the number of viewers) .

Much of the programming offered on broadcast TV these days are “re-boots,” shows brought back from the past that get a face lift (Murphy Brown, Hawaii 5-0, Will and Grace and show formally known as Rosanne). While this strategy worked for a while, it is becoming clear that audiences are looking for more.

Broadcast television can still tout franchises like Law & Order, and medical shows still are able to pull in decent ratings, but at much smaller audience sizes. Reality shows are also not immune from this trend. Dancing With the Stars has fallen by more than 31 percent this season and Shark Tank has loss of 33 percent causing us to wonder when the investor hosts bail on a sinking ship.

Re-boot shows that were relevant 20 – 30 years ago no longer fit the today’s millennial lifestyle. Take a look at what programs won an Emmy in 2018. While not a good way to measure ratings, cable outlets and streaming services dominated with wins which you have to believe is due to superior programs.

There’s another challenge for broadcasters. Long gone are the days when viewers only had  two to three choices. Jack Benny ruled Sunday nights with enormous shares having President Kennedy quipping that he was too busy to watch most television but that he made the time to watch The Jack Benny Program each week.

There’s still some good news for broadcasters, it’s called football. The ratings for the week of Nov. 5, 2018, saw 6 of the top 10 programs tied to football programming (not just the games, but pre/post game programs). The rights to broadcast the games continue to soar, but so far, over the air broadcasters are able to hold on to them.

As we used to say in the biz, content is king or put another way “if you build it, they will come”.

War of the words

Posted on by

war-of-wordsThere continues to be a blurring of the lines in the fourth estate. The most recent incident involves CNN reporter Jim Acosta who had his credentials removed after a testy exchange with President Trump. The White House claims Acosta made contact with an intern when he refused to give back the microphone. CNN has sued the White House in an effort to reinstate Acosta. A judge issued a court order to temporarily reinstate his pass, but it’s going to be tough for viewers (especially of Fox News) to accept Acosta can remain objective in his reporting.

This is not about whether or not the White House has the right to revoke a reporters credentials (I do in fact believe they have that right under the proper circumstances). There are other CNN reporters that have access to the White House, so it’s not like the entire news organization has been banned. My problem with all of this is when a reporter becomes part of the story.

Having reporters like Acosta appear on programs such as Anderson Cooper 360 puts them in a tough spot. Any time a reporter shows up on a talking head show, they run the risk of delving into the land of speculation which can lead them down the slippery slope of offering an opinion. Now he has become part of the story which in the minds of many, (myself included) casts doubts on his ability to be objective in his reporting.

And this issue is not exclusive to CNN. The White House promoted Fox News broadcaster/journalist Sean Hannity was scheduled to appear with President Trump at a campaign rally before November’s election. That immediately set off an uproar about journalistic integrity. Hannity later said he was broadcasting his show from the rally, but was not there to make an appearance, although when the president invites you up to stage, what are you going to do, say no? Even Fox News called it an “unfortunate distraction” and Hannity, who was advertised to appear on Fox News election coverage ended up being a no show.

I personally don’t consider Hannity a journalist in the true sense of the word. I also don’t find Anderson Cooper one either, but that’s okay, talk show hosts can play an important role in updating and educating their audience, but I do think we need to hold reporters and news anchors (not talking heads) to a higher standard and have them report the news, not be a part of it.

Saving face

Posted on by
I'm Back!

I’m Back (maybe)

Megan Kelly is in the news again. This time she stepped in it by saying it wasn’t racist for white people to darken their skin with makeup, as long as they’re portraying an actual person of character during a round-table discussion of Halloween costumes.

It probably took the internet less than a millisecond to explode into outrage. Kelly first apologized in an eternal email to co-workers writing “I realize now that such behavior is indeed wrong, and I am sorry. The history of blackface in our culture is abhorrent; the wounds too deep”. Kelly then also offered an on-air apology.

Now I am not a fan of Kelly and never found her to be that interesting, or that good of an interviewer, but admit to being a little surprised at the reaction of NBC executives. Does anyone remember the forgettable “White Chicks”? Two African American actors (Shawn and Marlon Wayans) go undercover in an abduction case, disguised as the two spoiled white daughters of a tycoon, Brittany and Tiffany Wilson. Other than being awarded a Razzie as the Worst Picture in 2005, White Chicks did not create the outrage Kelly received for simply thinking it was OK for different races to mimic each other.

Is there a double standard? Some will argue its offensive because blacks suffered terrible injustices at the hands of white people and who’s to say that’s not true, or that it’s not fair to feel that way.

Did she say it with hate in her heart, or simply ignorant of the deep hurt that thinking that way can cause someone to be offended. I wonder how many other white Americans understood how African Americans really felt about this. I also wonder if the reaction would have been the same if it someone other than Kelly had said it.

Perhaps in the end this was not about blackface, but more about NBC executives trying to save face and find a way to get out of what appears to be a bad programming decision/contract with a host whose popularity is lukewarm at best.

We’re on the road to nowhere

Posted on by

downloadHow did we get here? That’s a question that’s being asked more and more. Where has civility gone? Have we come to the point where people are so tired of feeling bad that they feel the need to lash out at others?

I attended a recent conference that featured Evan Smith from the Texas Tribune. He spoke about how, as a society, we are choosing to get our information from sources that think like we do. Consider yourself a conservative? You’re probably watching Fox News. Lean more liberal? You are probably turning to CNN for your news.

The problem is that you are only getting one side to story that may have several (meaning even more than two!). Americans are not looking to get information to learn something, but rather looking for someone to validate their own beliefs and that’s where the trouble starts.

Doing this leads us to thinking we don’t need to compromise because there are plenty of people who think like we do right? Why should we give in, let the other guy deal with it. This leaves us running in place for the most part because nothing gets done (which actually could be a good thing).

Here’s something else to remember. While the right is getting their information from Fox and the left from CNN, there is a common denominator between both media giants, they are driven by profits which means, just like politicians, they play to their base (or audience).

I am not suggesting it’s #FakeNews, but than again, it’s not very good coverage of the news either.

Who is minding the store?

Posted on by

FacebookComputers and big data are getting smarter and smarter, but are we relying on them too much?

Bogus ads and fake news on Facebook are getting people’s attention. Being able to super-target a consumer down to age, gender, location and web browsing history is a marketers wet dream, but a question of who is minding the store is starting to be raised.

There is currently an investigation underway to determine if the Russian government tried to influence the recent presidential election, but there is even a darker element to targeting certain groups of people that defies common sense.

ProPublica, an investigative news organized reported on how Facebook’s automated ad software allowed them to target people interested in ‘Jew hater’, ‘History of why Jews ruin the world’ and ‘How to burn Jews’. The Houston Chronicle’s Chris Tomlinson tested those targeted groups with his own ads which Facebook approved within 15 minutes.

Facebook eventually removed those options after it was brought to their attention, but the question remains, how could that have been an acceptable target demo to begin with?

Buying ads on social media that are automated allows companies to keep profits high and costs down, but at what cost? Free speech is protected by the First Amendment, but do these companies really want to be known for promoting and profiting from these messages?

Disinformation is nothing new, Tokyo Rose was a fabricated name given by Allied troops in the South Pacific during World War II to all female English-speaking radio broadcasters of Japanese propaganda. The soldiers knew it was fake, but in today’s social media world, it’s getting harder and harder to spot them.

What responsibility does Facebook have? In the end, not much unless you are fan of credibility. Letting the consumer figure out what’s real and what isn’t does not sound like a solid business approach. Your friends might not stop posting, but companies might have second thoughts of having their ads next to a Jew hater ad.

There is another dark side to this automation without human oversite. During Hurricane Irma, people were scrambling to evacuate Miami. Travel websites starting jacking up fares that were $547 to over $3,200. Price gouging? No, just a computer doing its job of seeing high demand for an item and pricing it accordingly. Again, removing the human element from the equation.

How did consumers respond? They turned to social media to publicly shame companies for their practices (and to their credit, most responded). Until we learn to better humanize computers, we should be even more wary of what is being served to us in our feed.

The most watched music video of all time

Posted on by

maxresdefaultGangnam Style is finally no longer the most watched YouTube video. The mega-hit by South Korean Psy was the most played video on YouTube for the last five years.

How popular was Gangnam Style? It broke the play counter and forced YouTube to rewrite the code, but now there’s a new No. 1; “See You Again” by Wiz Khalifa and featuring Charlie Puth.

“See You Again” has whizzed by Psy with an astonishing 2,896,978,257 views (at the time of writing). The song, released in 2015 on the Furious 7 Original Motion Picture Soundtrack, was commissioned as a tribute to the late actor Paul Walker.

A lot has happened since Gangnam Style was released. Obama was re-elected to a second term, Whitney Houston passed away, the Boston Marathon was rocked by a bomber, Pope Benedict XVI resigned, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 went missing, the Winter Olympics were held in Sochi, Microsoft introduced Windows 10 and Donald Trump was elected president.

It is astonishing when you think about the number of times these two videos have been seen when you consider that 300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute with almost 5 billion videos being watched every day.

Video may have killed the radio star, but today it looks like YouTube killed MTV.

What’s the frequency Kenneth?

Posted on by

6de8cbe03fd76c2859922157816cf876--dan-rather-radio-stationsThe Federal Communications Commission is considering whether or not to keep the main studio rule which requires stations to maintain “main studios” in their primary coverage area.

Organizations like the National Association of Broadcasters claim this rule is inconsistent” with listener and viewer expectations, and suggested that eliminating the rule would result in cost savings, better deployment of resources, efficiency and better service.

The broadcast industry, like many other industries, has seen massive challenges and change over the last few decades. Years of consolidation, debt and emerging technologies like the internet have forced to it to come up with new ways to remain viable and profitable.

Long gone are the days where powerful radio stations were owned by families like the Jones (who owned KTRH & KLOL). Those families were part of the fabric of the community, and while making a profit was important, so was service.

LPTV operator Venture Technology Group said “the purpose of the rules has been bypassed by technology,” but has it? I thought the purpose was to serve the community that the station was licensed to.

There is fear that broadcasting emergency information can be impacted. Can you imagine someone in Los Angles providing coverage of a hurricane that is headed toward Houston? There is also concern if you eliminate the main studio rule, you run the risk of losing places for talent to pay their dues and gnaw their teeth. It is very rare for someone to be an overnight sensation and make it to the major markets.

DAIDIFgXYAAUHIn

So where do new and aspiring broadcasters start? Internet radio? Pod-casting? YouTube? All are possible, but that begs the question, who needs a broadcast station to begin with.

Many feel the industry shot themselves in the foot when they opened the door to consolidation and allowed companies to own multiple stations in a single market. They might be shooting themselves in the other foot if the main studio rule goes away which will make it very hard for them to remain standing.