Hot topics click link for more
No reasonable person should doubt the creativity of British tabloid editors and writers. They are in a league of their own. After all, who else could have kept Nessie alive for a century.
A bit more than a week ago, a video editor working for UK tabloid Daily Star strolled into grocery - later revealed as Tesco - and purchased a head of iceberg lettuce. Nothing untoward here, right? Deputy editor - Denis Mann - had a conversation with chief editor Jon Clark about a column in the Economist (October 11) - certainly not a tabloid but ripe for the pickings - by executive editor Andrew Palmer referring to UK prime minister Liz Truss as having “the shelf-life of a lettuce.” The Daily Star team seized that opportunity. (See more about media in the UK here)
The back story is mostly of interest to UK political junkies. PM Truss was named by the right-wing Conservative Party faithful in early September to replace disgraced PM Boris Johnson. Ms Truss espoused far-right libertarian positions appealing to a sufficient number of party regulars. On accession she went on a rip with big tax cuts for wealthy people, which horrified the financial community. It was all down hill from there.
On October 14, Daily Star launched a YouTube channel, live streaming “Can Liz Truss outlast a lettuce?” It featured the lettuce next to photos of Ms Truss. The Daily Star team enhanced the lettuce with eyes, glasses and a wig with frequently changing captions. British bookies, of course, got into the game. The sell-by date on the Tesco sticker indicated ten days. By October 20, the lettuce was still (mostly) green and PM Truss resigned. The life saga of the lettuce traveled around the world. (See more about tabloids here)
“We have no plans to eat Lizzy Lettuce as that would be cruel after all she’s done for us,” said Mr. Clark as part of an “interview” with UK media news portal Press Gazette (October 21). “She is currently weighing up her options and is thinking of either going into politics full time or she may instead become a full-time lion tamer. We will keep you posted.”
As loyal followers of the Eurovision Song Contest (ESC) already know Liverpool in the UK will host the 2023 events next May. Public broadcasting trade body European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which organizes the annual pop music event, decided in May to select a UK venue and Liverpool was named earlier this month. In normal times, the public broadcaster sponsoring the winning tune hosts the next years’ event. With Kalush Orchestra winning the 2022 ESC in Turin, Italy with the folk/rap song “Stefania” the Public Broadcasting Company of Ukraine very briefly held out hope of hosting the 2023 event.
Viewing events on the ground in Ukraine - the military invasion by the Russian Federation - the EBU and its various stakeholders determined the risks were far too great. The UK was selected, officially, because its entry placed second, making the BBC default host, though, also officially, Ukraine remains the shared host. Some ESC observers suggested financial and logistical motives. Due to the Russian Federation invasion of Ukraine, its state broadcaster was booted from the EBU and is no longer making regular membership contributions, including for the ESC. And the BBC can - usually - find the money. Maybe. (See more about the Eurovision Song Contest here)
In the meantime, EBU increased fees for public broadcasters to compete in the ESC. This is on top of inflating participation costs; transportation, accommodation and all the rest. This week, three national public broadcasters decided to pass on the opportunity. “Such a decision is in the best interest of the citizens, taking into account the increased costs due to the energy crisis,” said a statement from Macedonian Radio Television (MRT), “as well as the increased registration fee for the participation,” quoted by Euronews (October 20).
"In addition to the significant costs of registration fees, as well as the cost of staying in Great Britain we also faced a lack of interest from sponsors, so we decided to direct existing resources to the financing of current and planned national projects," said a statement from Montenegro public broadcaster RTCG. Though not yet giving a public statement, Bulgaria’s BNT indicated it, too, would not be sending singers to Liverpool, reported Bulgarian media news portal Mediapool (October 20).
Publishers have forever aimed their ire at any competitor; first radio, then TV and on to the digital sphere. Public broadcasting has been a particular target. The lobbying - across several countries - to reign-in the different public services has continued in fits and starts. Cutting budgets has been popular, until listeners and viewers losing favorite shows get fed up. It’s the same with changing revenue streams: ditching compulsory fees found favor, adding politicians to governing boards not so much.
A different tactic from publishers has been entirely digital. German publishers association BDZV successfully litigated for an arbitration board to settle claims that public broadcasters are forbidden from providing services “too similar” to newspapers. Obviously, publishers are less concerned about their printed product than all the wonderful on-line possibilities. Quite clearly, publishers want to avoid courtroom drama. The initial agreement set out vague limits on how much text German public broadcasters can make available on their websites. (See more about media in Germany here)
Last week this arbitration board met, finally, noted Der Tagesspiegel (October 14), after three years. The discussion centered on disputes over online reporting by two regional public broadcasters. The meeting concluded with an agreement to disagree. Several objectives were set out, including the use of links. (See more about digital transitions here)
Not a few German media watchers noted that - by focusing on “press-like text” - publishers seem intent on revisiting centuries past, said Ubermedien (October 17). “Anyone who practices online journalism almost inevitably acts 'press-like'. How is a court supposed to draw boundaries with Gutenberg's term?” The arbitration board did agree to meet again next year.
|
