Media Re:public

While looking for the price Disney paid for iparenting.com (never did find it), I spent a little time on the iParenting site and found myself following a link under “latest parenting news” to this article The Use of Donor Eggs for Post-40 Pregnancies. The headers above the short, unsigned text read “Preconception” (the name of one of iParenting.com’s “channels” and below that, “iParenting Family News.”

All seems clear, this is news of interest to people trying to conceive. But who wrote this text and contributed it to the Family News feed? Doesn’t say. The text references “a California study,” the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Society of Reproductive Mediine(sic). Sounds informative. It also quotes an M.D. from an infertility clinic in Illinois. Fine. And then the last line of the piece helpfully gives a link (just one) to more information - the website of that same for-profit clinic.

At this point, some iParenting readers might pause to consider whether this particular item of content falls under their personal definition of news or might in fact be, say, a pseudo-scientific press release that hopes to steer readers towards a particular medical treatment at a particular facility. But are most couples trying to get pregnant thinking about the source of their information? In answer to my query to iParenting as to whether this was in fact paid-for advertorial, I got this repsonse:

“…the item in question is not an article, rather it is a newsline*, press release or piece of note-worthy information that may or may not help our readers in their pursuit of pregnancy…News is not commercial in nature, paid advertisements nor is it sponsored. It is culled from a variety of reputable sources who put their news out into the media via press release, major information dissemination announcement or by other means.”

* “newsline” is a non-word as far as I can tell; I couldn’t find any reference except as a proper noun.

Ignoring the question of whether it’s stupid not to charge money for such clearly commercial content, is this the curse of iParenting’s fabled success? When you have so many eyeballs to sell, you need all the content you can find, right? So why not mix press releases from pharmaceutical companies and for-profit infertility treatement providers in with those from the March of Dimes and the American Academy of Pediatrics? (Also random celebrity pregnancy and parenting tidbits from People - just weird) The response from iParenting subtly implies that their readers understand the difference between articles in “latest parenting news” and the bylined “articles” (the word news is notably absent from those pages). Essentially they’ve redefined the word “news” for their own purposes. How innovative.

The website of the Walt Disney Internet Group clarifies everything: “Its paramount mission is to provide a safe, secure environment for consumers to experience the Disney brand anytime and anywhere as they inform and entertain themselves, look to join communities with other Disney fans, or shop for products and services…”

There you go. Disney is not here to inform us, they just want us to experience their brand while we inform ourselves, and if we choose to be informed (or entertained) by press releases aimed at desperate couples that is our personal choice.

Universal media literacy education requirement, anyone?

Persephone

Read on to scan the full email exchange

__(’Read the rest of this entry »’)

Last weekend, after years of averting my eyes from the devil’s handiwork, I tried a Sudoku puzzle. Predictably, I became addicted almost instantaneously. At 6:30 this morning, when my beau brought me coffee, I reached for the puzzle I hadn’t been able to finish before going to sleep and realized I was in trouble. But I finished it and got dressed and realized that the fact that I do the puzzles on little 3×3 squares of paper ripped carefully from the morning paper will save me. The thing is I’m getting faster and they only PRINT ONE PUZZLE A DAY. I can deal with this. I can make myself believe that Sudoku books or websites do not exist. The Boston Globe will manage my dosage, allowing me to retain the hope of keeping my job. Thank you, dead-tree old media. Thank you for having limits.
Persephone

Interesting article that came to me via the indispensable Romenesko makes a plausible case for the Sulzbergers sooner or later selling the NY Times to Google. Reminded me of talking to David Hornik while he was here at Berkman and he just in passing said “the big media companies like Google and Microsoft…” My comment that Google claims not to be a media company justifiably made him giggle.

Meanwhile, I had never seen the site that published the article originally, Real Clear Markets, so I went to their “about us” page and found it and their “contact” page both blank and wondered who they were. I eventually found out by going to their parent Real Clear Politics, which has been around since 2000, aka since the beginning of time (remember, I was specifically hired for this project because I haven’t been paying attention to this stuff till now). But I wondered whether there has been discussion in the community? industry? about a standard for disclosure of ownership structure, business models, etc. Another task for a watchdog/media literacy ngo I suppose.

David Weinberger’s quote above is just one lovely thing in Global Voices’ new guide to global citizen media for would-be mediamakers around the world. You may not need the tips on starting a blog, but the examples from around the world are impressive.

Persephone

Because today is the sixth anniversary of the first prisoners arriving at Gitmo.
Because I want the United States to CLOSE GUANTANAMO NOW.

Back to classifying participatory media tomorrow.
Persephone

(This stuff being citizen/participatory/etc. media)

There are lots and lots out there, I’m sure this is only the beginning. Does every new project need its own?

The Online Journalism Review has a glossary of online news terms that is wondrously compact (only 19 terms) and yet manages to include “sock-puppetry.”

The New Media Glossary at ipressroom seems mostly aimed at teaching its clients what its services are.

Ourmedia’s Social Media Glossary is mostly straightforward, but I find their definition of personal media as “grassroots works such as videos and audio” a bit weird.

Not clear to me how or why Ipod made it into Mediashift’s brief glossary

The British Freedom of Express Project Glossary is interesting, venturing out into democracy, telecom companies and multilaterals, though sadly missing sock puppetry.

Then there’s the wiki-based Glossary on participatory journalism created for the (now-defunct, as far as I know) Media Center at API, which would seem like the right form, except it doesn’t look like folks are updating it much these days.

So is an individually tailored glossary simply a necessary part of any project about participatory media, a way of telegraphing priorities and positions? If so, should it be focused specifically on terms used in the work at hand that may not be familiar to some members of the target audience? Or is there still a need for a(nother) standalone glossary of terms aimed at being definitive?

More to come on this.
Persephone

I found this piece by Dave Morgan on Google competing with media companies very convincing and a little frightening. This is why newspaper execs complain that they’re getting “10 cents on the dollar” when they sell advertising in their online editions: 90% of online ad money goes to search. Google plans on keeping it that way. Who can blame them?
Persephone

Quiz Answers!

1. In first 3 quarters of 2007, how much money was spent to buy advertising in all the following media combined: TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, the Internet, billboards and those annoying inserts in the Sunday paper?
Answer: C) $108 billion - ok, maybe it’s just me, but it still seems like a lot of money. And remember, that doesn’t include 4th quarter, which is normally more than quarters 1-3. For comparison, total 2006 spending was just shy of $150 billion.

1a) Extra credit international question: In 2006, the U.S. ad market was what % of the global ad market? (answer below)

2. For the same period (Jan-Sept 2007) match the media to the appropriate % of the total:
1) Magazines B) 20%
2) Internet D) 8%
3) Radio E) 7%
4) Newspapers C) 18%
5) TV A) 43% (The other numbers are tricky, but if you didn’t guess TV was the biggest, you might want to consider some media lit’racy classes)
6) Outdoor (billboards) + Inserts F) 4%

3. Online advertising in the first three quarters of 2007 was up over the same period by what percentage?
B) 17% (and everyone says the rate of growth in 2008 will be even higher, keep reading)

3a) Extra credit – what do forecasters predict for online advertising total for 2008?

4. Now that you have all the data, match the numbers to the media
1) Newspapers C) $19.2 billion (down 5.00% over ‘06)
2) Radio A) $7.9 billion (down 1.8%)
3) Internet B) $8.3 billion (up 17.2% and beating radio in dollar value for the first time)
4) Magazines D) $21.8 billion (this “dying” medium was UP 4.20% over last year, thank you very much)

Source: TNS Media Intelligence
I found it here

Extra credit answers:
1a) In 2006 the US represented 37% of the global ad market
Source: GroupM, This Year, Next Year, Dec. 2007
I found it here
3a) one prediction is “nearly $28 billion, a 29% increase over 2007”
Source: Emarketer
I found it here