Speaker by Various Artists

Read Post

Speaker: The End of Trust

59 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last

  • Stephen Judd, in reply to Russell Brown,

    You can nuke mine too, if you want, I'm not bothered.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report Reply

  • Marc C,

    Quote: "Journalists shouldn’t trust PR people, but they have to, to some degree. We have things they want, just as they have things we want. We want stories, column inches, interviews and photographs for our clients. They want access to clients, interesting stories that will appeal to their readers (or viewers or listeners) and a scoop on the competition."

    It seems to work so often to offer "stories" for certain people with vested commercial or political interests. On the other hand, I have repeatedly heard stories about people at the bottom of the social pile, like those on benefits, having shocking stories to tell about the way they have been treated by WINZ or Housing NZ, and how frustrated they were, that NO media seemed much interested to report on this.

    I suppose the list can go on, where people get hard done by, but apart from a vague chance on getting a brief slot on "Fair Go", "Campbell Live" or any other show, that is for instance on TV, most never get heard and noticed, while we get many stories about the newest gadgets, about who is having a relationship with whom, and and what else there is on celebrity level.

    So much for "trust", I'd say, I lost trust in the media a fair time ago, and I never had much trust at all in any PR hacks, lobbyists and whatever else they may call themselves. Society is breaking to pieces and going to the pits in inter human relationship terms, it seems, because it is all about what sells, who can sell it, and how many buy what these days. Even people are more and more "performers" judged in commercial terms, and thus nothing but numbers, as workers, contractors or consumers. Where is the "human" bit in us, that is left? Where is the holistic side of us, and us all, representing "society", which is becoming a vague term nowadays.

    Auckland • Since Oct 2012 • 437 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    there’s everything wrong about it because it erodes the distinction between editorial and advertising

    At least if I'm reading a magazine they do the bare minimum of putting "advertorial" at the top of a page of advertising pretending to be a story. From what I'm reading in this thread it seems as though I should be seeing that word in a lot of other places too.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Andre,

    Symptomatic of the acceptance of commercial interests in media is the reference to advertorial as 'native advertising'. I've run hundreds of stories in b2b magazines that feature interviews with advertisers but in reality those companies were industry influencers. I've been flown to Asia and Europe to attend trade shows but the resulting editorial was relevant. My favourite columns were 'Hotel Hound' where I took a free trip and reported on my stay. I never had a bad free night in a Presidential Suite and the resulting prose reflected that.
    Whale oil is on a different planet to this type of activity but I think those who came up with the native advertising moniker obviously thought they had something to hide.

    New Zealand • Since May 2009 • 368 posts Report Reply

  • CJM, in reply to Danielle,

    Hmm, you haven't worked on magazines then. There is tons of stuff which is pure PR/Advert, no disclaimers. So prevalent nowadays, very depressing.

    Auckland • Since Aug 2014 • 107 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Re-watching the panel segment at about 4m seems less definitive. It was Nat-aligned panellist Megan Campbell who made a statement and Wood added that Mahuta-Coyle was nodding in agreement out of shot. I actually got the impression the interviewer may have been aware of the area of interest.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19735 posts Report Reply

  • Andre,

    Mr X has joined Blah Blah firm as Blah Blah title. Blah Blah firm are known as the leading firm in their industry and are reporting a huge amount of interest in their amazing new Blah Blah product.
    No sign of, or official need for, an Advertorial warning. A bit like reading 90% of the Herald’s reporting on National and John Key. Loving the fact that Greenwald is seeking to debate the PM in person now. But considering the MSM have agreed he doesn’t have to debate NZ First or The Greens (and anything else he’s demanded), I’m thinking there’s a snow-ball’s chance in a Kent fire.

    New Zealand • Since May 2009 • 368 posts Report Reply

  • Fran O'Sullivan,

    I took it Deborah was there as a former Labour political insider – not as a PR. That is surely the experience the show’s producers wanted to tap. So, to me that was where the primary disclosure should lie.
    I missed the piece where she may have commented on royalties so would have phrased differently if had caught that.
    One way through that conflict is to make a personal disclosure in the comments ie' "My day job is for Big Oil .... " or for the show host to cover it off. QA acknowledges Michelle Boag’s political experience not her PR day job.
    Fran

    Wellington • Since Sep 2007 • 14 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Fran O'Sullivan,

    former Labour political insider

    I'm confused how former candidates get labelled as that, especially in Josie Pagani's case.

    I missed the piece where she may have commented on royalties so would have phrased differently if had caught that.

    See my comment above - looks like some folk on Twitter misheard. Never happens :)

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19735 posts Report Reply

  • Alfie, in reply to Andre,

    Loving the fact that Greenwald is seeking to debate the PM in person now.

    Do you have a reference for that Andre? I can't find it in either of the major papers.

    Dunedin • Since May 2014 • 1436 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle, in reply to CJM,

    There is tons of stuff which is pure PR/Advert, no disclaimers.

    I suspect that (there can’t possibly be that many disinterested* journalists making the call on the awesomeness of new types of mascara), but why do some puff pieces give the disclaimer and some don’t? Is that part of the culture of each magazine?

    *archaic definition, meaning “unbiased”

    ETA It occurs to me that the stated advertorials are "actual money to buy a page of advertising that looks like an article" and the mascara reviews are "using people employed by magazines to promote your product by giving them supplies of free stuff", so there is obviously a difference. But to me it's a bit of a whiffy one.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Fran O'Sullivan, in reply to Sacha,

    Well that's tough on Deborah if she didn't say that. Shows are a bit spotty with the partisan disclosures but quite easy to remedy.

    Wellington • Since Sep 2007 • 14 posts Report Reply

  • Moz,

    And here's a nice example. Normally-respectable Australian site The Conversation (that aims to be the PA of Australia :) has an article up talking about the NZ election and Scottish Referendum, but using Curia polling and PR as the basis for their analysis. Given their take on Scotland I suspect they've used a similar source for their Scottish analysis.

    I've commented that using a National Party PR company for your data is perhaps not ideal, and should at the very least be disclosed in the article rather than making people chase it up and draw the necessary "obvious if you know" inferences.

    Sydney, West Island • Since Nov 2006 • 1233 posts Report Reply

  • phplad,

    I was in the car the other day, travelling on a wet slippery downhill road with off camber corners.
    On the radio they had some road safety experts ranting on about being careful.
    I immediately rang the radio station and accused them of conspiracies and fear-mongering and grilled them on where they got this information from
    Unfortunately in what must be an unrelated coincidence, this caused me to slide off the road into a yard where some children were playing.
    The police arrived , I shrugged my shoulders and said "ah well, thats just physics"
    I hope my insurance will pay for the mess.

    New Zealand • Since Aug 2014 • 17 posts Report Reply

  • Fran O'Sullivan, in reply to Hebe,

    Hebe - have answered this further down

    Wellington • Since Sep 2007 • 14 posts Report Reply

  • Andre, in reply to Alfie,

    I doubt you’ll find it in the MSM yet. I saw it on a friend’s link to an Internet Mana Facebook page I’m not directly linked to. But it looked legit.

    New Zealand • Since May 2009 • 368 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Anna Connell,

    ... everyone's got a barrow to push.

    Can't have a marketplace of ideas without them...

    :- )

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7948 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    With all due respect, Russell, I think there’s everything wrong about it because it erodes the distinction between editorial and advertising. If you’re treating some consumer product as a news story, then I think “lay viewers” shouldn’t have to be media hep cats about where the story is coming from.

    No, it doesn't, largely because there has to be a story in it and producers and editors can still say no, which they do 95% of the time. But if someone's made a world-beating widget, then maybe there's a story in it. And the product isn't necessarily an object -- it might be a concert that the promoter needs to sell tickets to, some other kind of event, or new research that the University of Auckland wants to brag about. They all end up on Seven Sharp or whatever because someone pitched them.

    That said, there was, a few years ago, a rather dark period for Campbell Live where it wasn't unknown for all three stories in one show to be pretty much transparent (and often unresearched) PR plugs. That got depressing.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22843 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Danielle,

    ETA It occurs to me that the stated advertorials are “actual money to buy a page of advertising that looks like an article” and the mascara reviews are “using people employed by magazines to promote your product by giving them supplies of free stuff”, so there is obviously a difference. But to me it’s a bit of a whiffy one.

    The lines are getting very blurred in the era of “native advertising”, where advertising is designed to look and feel like as much like editorial content as possible. I’ve been pitched “native advertising” which isn’t so much inappropriate as idiotic. Literally “when an airline has excess inventory in tickets to Fiji, we send you something to run about how awesome going to Fiji for a holiday is.”

    One of the reasons that’s popular is that we’re all kind of switching off advertising now. It’s no accident that PR campaigns are commonly accounted to the client in terms of equivalent TV minutes – ie, that value of that time as paid advertising.

    Otoh, I don’t have a problem with clearly-signalled sponsored posts from organisations looking for a conversation, as we’ve done for the Law Commission and NZTA. It’s not all one thing.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22843 posts Report Reply

  • Dismal Soyanz, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Otoh, I don’t have a problem with clearly-signalled sponsored posts from organisations looking for a conversation, as we’ve done for the Law Commission and NZTA. It’s not all one thing.

    And my impression is that these are conversations that are of public interest rather than the private purchase of goods and services.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2010 • 310 posts Report Reply

  • Andre,

    We post here and read the content because we trust the moderator's vision and conduct. This is a community rather than a channel. I felt this way about every media channel in my teens. Even radio. To think that Bfm used to employ a team of 6 journos under Sacha Dylan's editorship in the late 80's and up to half of their content was the resulting editorial is a nod to where we are today.

    New Zealand • Since May 2009 • 368 posts Report Reply

  • Pete, in reply to phplad,

    You appear to have escaped from either the Stuff or Kiwiblog's comments section with your line of reasoning - please resubmit, try accentuating logic this time

    Since Apr 2008 • 106 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Andre,

    hey, they were volunteers. and most of the station was music, but I'm proud of what we achieved

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19735 posts Report Reply

  • Rich Lock, in reply to Marc C,

    NO media seemed much interested to report on this.....It seems to work so often to offer “stories” for certain people with vested commercial or political interests.

    I appreciate that Paul's background is in tech, where by definition you'll be writing about gadgets and stuff that sells, and clearly he's writing about his own experience. But I think you're hitting the nail on the head here: There's no mention in the article of non-monetary public interest - the entire vibe is 'who is selling what to whom' and whether that needs to be more transparent.

    If you don't have a financial interest of any sort, it would appear that you simply don't exist, as far as today's media is concerned. Except possibly as the occasional freakshow segment.

    back in the mother countr… • Since Feb 2007 • 2728 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to Rich Lock,

    If you don't have a financial interest of any sort, it would appear that you simply don't exist, as far as today's media is concerned. Except possibly as the occasional freakshow segment.

    Or if the police are somehow involved. If the elephant in the room can be summed up in one short sentence, it would have to be: "Free speech has been cartelised."

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5439 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.