Hot topics click link for more
Publishers continue to debate the intricacies of business models in the digital age. The days of selling 25 year advertising contracts and shipping printed pages to kiosks are so far in the distance they are no longer a memory. There are many options. A favorite is billionaires.
French publisher Groupe La Vie Le Monde, known for the renowned daily Le Monde, was suffering during the first decade of the 21st century, not unusual at the time. First came big Spanish media house Grupo Prisa, publisher of El Pais, in 2005 with a 20% stake. It was more than Grupo Prisa could handle, challenges at home took priority. To the rescue, then, came three French billionaires: telecom/tech entrepreneur Xavier Niel, investment banker Matthieu Pigasse and Yves Saint Laurent co-founder Pierre Bergé in 2010. They acquired a 75% stake in the publisher through a holding company - Le Monde Libre. Readers and employees, editorial and otherwise, held the remaining 25%. Subsequently, M. Bergé passed away and Grupo Prisa made no secret of looking for an exit. (See more about media in France here)
Le Monde, M. Niel, M. Pigasse and employee holding company Independency Center (pôle d’indépendance) pushed forward. A year ago, though, M. Pigasse took on a partner in his Le Monde Libre stake, Czech energy billionaire Daniel Kretinsky, quite secretly. Mr. Kretinsky had been acquiring media assets in France, including several from Lagardère Group. Then M. Pigasse announced his “exclusive negotiations” for the Grupo Prisa stake, which would upset the equilibrium with M. Niel’s stake in Le Monde Libre. M. Niel wasn’t pleased and Le Monde editorial workers, all 460 of them, demanded an ironclad written agreement from all parties to maintain editorial independence, not to forget approval rights over any new shareholders. (See more about mergers and acquisitions here)
With a board meeting scheduled for next week, M. Niel stepped in with a proposal to create a foundation to hold the Le Monde Vie holdings, reported L’Express (September 19). In addition he offered that he and M. Pigasse would acquire “jointly and equally” the Grupo Prisa holding, worth about €15 million according to Le Monde (September 20), and distribute the equity to Independency Center. The two major shareholders would initial the editorial independence agreement. The foundation would bring Le Monde under an ownership model similar to the (UK) Guardian, reported the Financial Times (September 19), quoting a source familiar with M. Niel’s thinking.
Except, at the last minute M. Pigasse balked and initialed a differently worded agreement. He wants his financial position protected. Independency Center, essentially the editorial staff, would be responsible for any “financial consequences” of Mr. Kretinsky backing out of the partnership agreement or any forthcoming agreement with Grupo Prisa, noted Le Monde at the end of the week. Without surprise, Independency Center objected to the agreement version initialed by M. Pigasse.
Candidates in the upcoming presidential election in Romania are either really happy or really not. The government decided that equal time provisions in current law applies only to the mandates free time provided to all candidates. Political parties, however, can buy as much additional time as they like.
Earlier in September the Romanian government adopted rules for the conduct of the presidential election campaign. An “emergency ordinance” was adopted a week later regarding political advertising on privately owned television and radio channels. The CNA was given short notice to transpose the new ordinance in line with current media law. “There will be money for television,” reported media news portal paginademedia.ro (September 17). “The rest will be in the fog.”
Political candidates are already afforded time on all television channels, public and private, presumed equal. Under the new rules this does not change. Established candidates with better financed campaigns can supplement television exposure with paid exposure. Independent candidates, however, are left to their own devices, setting up a two-tier system. (See more about elections and media here)
"The problem is equal time,” said CNA president Monica Gubernat at the public meeting. “I understand that (the new ordinance) only relates to candidates, not to parties. That means that private television and radio will do two types of electoral promotion: one for money, one free. How will it be? That means (candidates) do not have equal access, because a candidate who has party backing can promote twice, once for free and once for a fee, and those independent candidates only for free. We no longer have equal access for all candidates.” (See more about media in Romania here)
“How do we account for this?” asked broadcaster B1 TV representative Rares Anita at the meeting. “If we are contracted for 100 spots by a party that supports a candidate will we have to automatically give 100 spots to an independent (candidate) to be balanced?”
“Try to have equal time,” responded Ms Gubernat. “It’s your problem. Regarding the money, we’re not interested in balance, only candidates.”
Poland’s ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party has proposed some sort of standards or licensing for journalists. It is part of the party’s overall platform for the next parliamentary election a month from now. Given the party’s general right-wing nationalist stance and, most specifically, unending complaints about critical news media, what could go wrong with that?
A “law on the professional status of journalists” would be created, according to the PiS statements, to “introduce solutions similar to those of other professions in the public trust, such as lawyers and doctors,” reported news portal Onet.pl (September 16). “The law would create a regulatory body that “would care for ethical and professional standards… and be responsible for shaping journalism students.” Under the PiS plan reporters - and presumably editors - could be required to “implement the regulations of the editorial office where he is employed.” (See more about elections and media here)
Needless to say, the idea has not been widely embraced within Poland’s media sphere. “Politicians never wish journalists well,” wrote Onet.pl editor-in-chief Bartosz Weglarczyk. “When they start to say that they are doing something for us, I am terrified. If the act is to regulate who, as the editor-in-chief, I can hire and who not, then it will be the end of journalistic freedom. This was the case in the Polish People's Republic.” (See more about media in Poland here)
The Polish People’s Republic (Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa - PRL) was the dictatorship ruling the country between 1947 and 1989. It was a member of the Warsaw Pact. It was voted out and not forgotten.
“We eliminated relics of the PRL era in the Press Law,” said former president of media regulator KRRiT, former president of Polish Public TV and current (minority) member of the supervisory board for public broadcasting Juliusz Braun media news portal wirtualnemedia.pl (September 15) “We have liberalized authorization rules. Unfavorable interviews can no longer be blocked or changed in such a way as to distort their meaning. A journalist is no longer prosecuted for publishing an interview without the interlocutor's consent if the publication reflects the actual conversation. We limited the publisher's right to interfere in journalistic materials and removed the provision allowing the journalist to be dismissed from his job for writing the truth, which was not in line with the editorial line.” Mr. Braun has been a critic of the various media initiatives of the PiS, especially State takeover of public broadcasting.
“The originators of this act on the journalist profession are satisfied, among others, with changes in the State media,” said Dziennik Gazeta Prawna editor-in-chief Krzysztof Jedlak. “And it is hard to imagine that State media - such as we are dealing with - would be a reference point for assessing the reliability, objectivity and skills of professional journalists.”
It’s what the folks in the newsroom call “massive.” Rarely have so many publishers and broadcasters put collective editorial emphasis on a specific subject other than war. But it is a war, one requiring everybody’s attention. Climate change is real and coming to air, soil and water now.
Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) editor/publisher Kyle Pope and US magazine The Nation environmental editor Mark Hertsgaard came up with the Covering Climate Now idea earlier this year of recruiting newsrooms across the US to ramp-up reporting on climate issues, devoting a week to special coverage. The time-frame chosen was the week ahead of the United Nations Climate Action Summit to be held in New York September 23rd. About 60 news organizations had signed up by the end of July, mostly in the US. That number had shot up to 250 over the weekend. More came on-board Monday (September 16). Something struck a nerve.
“The transformation of our environment is a vital story that is having a dramatic impact on the lives of people across the globe,” said AFP global news director Phil Chetwynd in a statement announcing the agency’s participation (September 16). “AFP is making the future of the Planet a major priority.” (See full AFP statement here) The Guardian (UK) signed on early as lead partner.
Participating in Covering Climate Now are big newspapers, not so big newspapers, news agencies, broadcast networks, general interest and specialty online publishers, individual public and private broadcasters, universities and institutions as well as writers. The collaboration is global. Coverage, to date, has been wide, varied, topical and interesting. The (UK) Guardian (September 16) reported on “disruptions” to cricket matches due to climate change. Hungarian news portal index.hu joined the effort, publishing reports in both Hungarian and English. Advertising business news portal Adweek is sharing its perspective. Some are even lifting paywalls on archive material about climate issues.
“We're not telling people what to write," said Mr. Pope, quoted by CNN (September 16). "We're not telling them who they should quote. We're not telling them what their story is... All we know is that there are climate stories that you should be devoting more of your attention to.”
|
