Playboy goes digital
25/08/05 12:49 Permalink
The girlie magazine industry isn't one to which I
normally pay much attention (which, as a freelance,
is unwise I'm told, as the word rates are
phenomenal). Today is different because
Playboy
is planning a digital edition (that link was to an
RSS feed of the story, not Playboy itself, before
anyone gets overheated). It'll never work.
There are many reasons for this, not least of which is that the magazine is hopelessly dated. Anyone who really, really wants to see naked women (and there are such people) and who has an Internet connection honestly doesn't have a problem, and they don't have to pay. I suppose a guarantee of bosoms but no computer viruses has a certain something as a selling point, but that's about it.
And yes I know there are people who say they read it for the articles, and no I've never believed them. Well, perhaps I did years ago when the so-called Playboy lifestyle didn't look all schlocky and dated, but I'm only just old enough to remember that.
No, Playboy is a girlie mag like any other, and once someone has twigged that the female anatomy is pretty universal and it's really easy to get hold of images, the USP has gone. Penthouse discovered it and died a few years back; my guess is that Playboy's about to go the same way. Sorry Hef - you were impressive in the sixties I'm sure, but times change and a few cursory glances tell me Playboy hasn't.
There are many reasons for this, not least of which is that the magazine is hopelessly dated. Anyone who really, really wants to see naked women (and there are such people) and who has an Internet connection honestly doesn't have a problem, and they don't have to pay. I suppose a guarantee of bosoms but no computer viruses has a certain something as a selling point, but that's about it.
And yes I know there are people who say they read it for the articles, and no I've never believed them. Well, perhaps I did years ago when the so-called Playboy lifestyle didn't look all schlocky and dated, but I'm only just old enough to remember that.
No, Playboy is a girlie mag like any other, and once someone has twigged that the female anatomy is pretty universal and it's really easy to get hold of images, the USP has gone. Penthouse discovered it and died a few years back; my guess is that Playboy's about to go the same way. Sorry Hef - you were impressive in the sixties I'm sure, but times change and a few cursory glances tell me Playboy hasn't.
|
Should we encourage him?
24/08/05 12:48 Media
issues Permalink
There's often a debate in journalism about whether
journalists actually create the news by giving
certain people publicity, or whether they're just
reporting what's going on. There's clearly a balance
between the two, but if there were ever a media-led
story then it must surely be
Prince Charles
and his bid to find out how much alternative medicine
could save the NHS.
Let's leave to one side the debate as to whether or not he has a point; I'm not a doctor or science journalist and wouldn't have a clue where to start finding out. What interests me is how he's attracted such a lot of controversy and publicity. He's not yet monarch, and looking at the lifespan of his grandmother as compared to his grandfather - and I say this without intending any disrespect or morbidity - it's just possible he may never be. And assuming he does make it there, he'll be a figurehead rather than an elected representative with clout.
So why are we concerned with what he thinks? I'll tell you why, it's because he's the Prince (or had you guessed?). He has enough clout and newsworthiness to make people sit up and listen whenever he says something and of course, the media obediently reports whatever he does. But what is actually going to happen after this report of his is published? I'd suspect nothing much, personally. Before anyone takes any of this seriously we've got to investigate whether alternative medicine actually works. And if it does - a big if, there - we've got to market the idea to people so they'll take it seriously when it comes through the NHS and is seen as more than a simple cost-saving initiative that doesn't actually cure anything.
Of course, it's August and a good old royal row with nutty Charlie makes good copy. But if he didn't have the media attention I'm sure we'd see this for the well-intentioned but insignificant move it actually is.
Let's leave to one side the debate as to whether or not he has a point; I'm not a doctor or science journalist and wouldn't have a clue where to start finding out. What interests me is how he's attracted such a lot of controversy and publicity. He's not yet monarch, and looking at the lifespan of his grandmother as compared to his grandfather - and I say this without intending any disrespect or morbidity - it's just possible he may never be. And assuming he does make it there, he'll be a figurehead rather than an elected representative with clout.
So why are we concerned with what he thinks? I'll tell you why, it's because he's the Prince (or had you guessed?). He has enough clout and newsworthiness to make people sit up and listen whenever he says something and of course, the media obediently reports whatever he does. But what is actually going to happen after this report of his is published? I'd suspect nothing much, personally. Before anyone takes any of this seriously we've got to investigate whether alternative medicine actually works. And if it does - a big if, there - we've got to market the idea to people so they'll take it seriously when it comes through the NHS and is seen as more than a simple cost-saving initiative that doesn't actually cure anything.
Of course, it's August and a good old royal row with nutty Charlie makes good copy. But if he didn't have the media attention I'm sure we'd see this for the well-intentioned but insignificant move it actually is.
Quotable quotes
23/08/05 12:47 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
It gets better.
After yesterday's item on radio criticising TV for taking credit when it's not due, there's been a denial.
"What Stuart actually said was 'I am pleased Little Britain was on BBC Three for a short time on its almost inevitable journey from the comedy goldmine of weekday Radio 4 to prime time BBC One,' says a spokesman.
The whole story is here. What really interests me, though, is the notion that they believe that anyone will accept that the above is anything other than a transparently manufactured quote. Nobody speaks like that. 'What Stuart actually said,' indeed. It could well be that the original report was misrepresented or exaggerated, but please, please, don't insult our intelligence in this way.
After yesterday's item on radio criticising TV for taking credit when it's not due, there's been a denial.
"What Stuart actually said was 'I am pleased Little Britain was on BBC Three for a short time on its almost inevitable journey from the comedy goldmine of weekday Radio 4 to prime time BBC One,' says a spokesman.
The whole story is here. What really interests me, though, is the notion that they believe that anyone will accept that the above is anything other than a transparently manufactured quote. Nobody speaks like that. 'What Stuart actually said,' indeed. It could well be that the original report was misrepresented or exaggerated, but please, please, don't insult our intelligence in this way.
Inter-BBC fighting
22/08/05 12:47 Media
issues Permalink
Hasn't this just been coming for a while:
The BBC is having internal punch-ups over people on the TV side claiming credit for shows that actually started on radio.
It could have been more cruel - they could have pointed to the radio version of Dead Ringers, for example, and pointed out that it was massively funnier than the one on the telly...
The BBC is having internal punch-ups over people on the TV side claiming credit for shows that actually started on radio.
It could have been more cruel - they could have pointed to the radio version of Dead Ringers, for example, and pointed out that it was massively funnier than the one on the telly...
Media studies - worth doing?
18/08/05 12:46 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
No time for a lengthy entry today, but I thought I'd
draw your attention to
this
- a discussion on media studies and whether it's
worth doing.
For my own part I don't know any journalists with this formal qualification - but hey, I'm getting older so that could be outmoded very quickly. The piece is well worth a look.
For my own part I don't know any journalists with this formal qualification - but hey, I'm getting older so that could be outmoded very quickly. The piece is well worth a look.
Citizen journalists
One of the less noticed elements of the London bombs
was the arrival of 'Citizen journalism'. For the
first time I can remember, broadcasters including Sky
and the BBC were actively asking people to take
pictures on their phones and e-mail them in.
It's a logical extension of what was common practice before. How many times did the broadcasters use 'amateur film' of some major event at which they didn't have a camera crew? Quite a lot, is the answer.
But this is different. This is asking, soliciting the viewers to send stuff in. Now, that's fine in what you might call 'harmless' situations - the protest meeting, the gathering for whatever other reason. The risks are pretty minimal if it all stays peaceful. What, though, about situations like bombs? Whilst watching the BBC and others say 'please send us your pics' I didn't hear them say 'and we'll indemnify you in case of injury'. Nor did I hear them issue guidelines about not doctoring photos to liven them up - again, that's one thing for clarity, but how long will it be before someone jazzes up one of these 'citizen' pictures and maybe adds something to the scene, falsifying what happened? Is the contributor expected to indemnify the broadcaster in case some sort of visual libel is committed?
The idea of getting people sending pictures in, as long as they're understood to be amateurs and everyone accepts the quality implications, sounds reasonable enough at first. But the possible ramifications are vast, and will need careful thinking through and a policy statement from everyone who's likely to use them.
It's a logical extension of what was common practice before. How many times did the broadcasters use 'amateur film' of some major event at which they didn't have a camera crew? Quite a lot, is the answer.
But this is different. This is asking, soliciting the viewers to send stuff in. Now, that's fine in what you might call 'harmless' situations - the protest meeting, the gathering for whatever other reason. The risks are pretty minimal if it all stays peaceful. What, though, about situations like bombs? Whilst watching the BBC and others say 'please send us your pics' I didn't hear them say 'and we'll indemnify you in case of injury'. Nor did I hear them issue guidelines about not doctoring photos to liven them up - again, that's one thing for clarity, but how long will it be before someone jazzes up one of these 'citizen' pictures and maybe adds something to the scene, falsifying what happened? Is the contributor expected to indemnify the broadcaster in case some sort of visual libel is committed?
The idea of getting people sending pictures in, as long as they're understood to be amateurs and everyone accepts the quality implications, sounds reasonable enough at first. But the possible ramifications are vast, and will need careful thinking through and a policy statement from everyone who's likely to use them.
Internet leakage boosts ratings
12/08/05 12:44 Media
issues Permalink
Did anybody see the new Ricky Gervais comedy,
Extras,
last night? I did, and I saw it last night, unlike
the people who downloaded the episode and saw it the
night before - you naughty, naughty people. It leaked
onto the Internet and the broadcasters were very
annoyed,
So the radio said this morning (I was listening to Jo Good on BBC London). But I can't help wonder whether we're missing a trick here. Earlier this year, in February/March time, you might remember the first episode of the new Doctor Who leaked onto the Net. The BBC was up in the proverbial arms...
...but the show did really, really well. Was it in spite of 1000 or so people looking at a rough cut of the episode or did the event keep the programme in the headlines and generate more interest? I'm coming round to the latter view, I've got to admit.
And now we come to Extras leaking out. It's an interesting thing, isn't it, that rather than the first episode leaking it was the fourth - which, coincidentally, was an absolute belter, certainly the best so far and if enough people see it, the one that's going to revive Les Dennis' career. I have no inside information, and if the leak was deliberate then it failed because there were no headlines in the lead-up to it.
But the choice of episode to leak looks a little convenient to me.
So the radio said this morning (I was listening to Jo Good on BBC London). But I can't help wonder whether we're missing a trick here. Earlier this year, in February/March time, you might remember the first episode of the new Doctor Who leaked onto the Net. The BBC was up in the proverbial arms...
...but the show did really, really well. Was it in spite of 1000 or so people looking at a rough cut of the episode or did the event keep the programme in the headlines and generate more interest? I'm coming round to the latter view, I've got to admit.
And now we come to Extras leaking out. It's an interesting thing, isn't it, that rather than the first episode leaking it was the fourth - which, coincidentally, was an absolute belter, certainly the best so far and if enough people see it, the one that's going to revive Les Dennis' career. I have no inside information, and if the leak was deliberate then it failed because there were no headlines in the lead-up to it.
But the choice of episode to leak looks a little convenient to me.
I'm not a reactionary, but...
11/08/05 12:43 Media
issues Permalink
...this is ridiculous. A man in Germany has just been
awarded £3000 for being 'outed' as his family didn't
know he was gay (story in The Guardian
here,
registration required).
So far, so good - but the way he was outed was that a newspaper published a picture of him at a gay parade.
Now, call me old-fashioned, but the definition of 'parade' includes some sort of indication that you're on show. You're also in a public place, and liable to be caught up in any passing photographer's lenses. To be honest, I can't actually think of any circumstances under which going to a public place in a parade could or should be considered a private act.
Still, £3000. Maybe I should attend a few parades - since I'm not gay I should be able at least to double that...
So far, so good - but the way he was outed was that a newspaper published a picture of him at a gay parade.
Now, call me old-fashioned, but the definition of 'parade' includes some sort of indication that you're on show. You're also in a public place, and liable to be caught up in any passing photographer's lenses. To be honest, I can't actually think of any circumstances under which going to a public place in a parade could or should be considered a private act.
Still, £3000. Maybe I should attend a few parades - since I'm not gay I should be able at least to double that...
Hilarious
10/08/05 12:43 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
OK, so I've bought a new computer - a Mac, as no
matter what I do, PCs tend to conk out on me
eventually. And I'm enjoying it.
But it has its drawbacks. One of which is that even the Mac user's own magazine, Mac Format, has a piece this month saying iMac buyers have gone for looks over substance (which is nonsense - if you don't need huge power, you don't buy a power mac and it's as simple as that).
Then when you try to mail the letters page your note bounces straight back - apparently their quota is full so, er, this IT mag's IT system is knackered.
Don't laugh. No, really, don't laugh...
But it has its drawbacks. One of which is that even the Mac user's own magazine, Mac Format, has a piece this month saying iMac buyers have gone for looks over substance (which is nonsense - if you don't need huge power, you don't buy a power mac and it's as simple as that).
Then when you try to mail the letters page your note bounces straight back - apparently their quota is full so, er, this IT mag's IT system is knackered.
Don't laugh. No, really, don't laugh...
About these bombs...
04/08/05 12:42 Media
issues Permalink
No, I'm not going to come out of semi-retirement and
say something stupid in defence of murderers and
bombers (although I will make more regular entries in
this blog than I've had a chance to do over the last
few months). But the reportage of the bomb suspects
is causing me some difficulty.
Last Friday, for example, a bulletin on the BBC said that the bombers had been apprehended. Not the suspects, not the people in the pictures, the bombers. Then there was the Sun, not atypically - 'Got the bastards' was the tone.
These people are accused of dreadful things. If they prove to be guilty I'm all for long prison sentences, after due process. But at the moment they have the right to be deemed innocent until proven otherwise - or else what are we fighting to protect when we react against the bombs in the first place? It's certainly not up to people in my profession to decide who's guilty or otherwise, and I hope future coverage will show reporters bearing this in mind.
Last Friday, for example, a bulletin on the BBC said that the bombers had been apprehended. Not the suspects, not the people in the pictures, the bombers. Then there was the Sun, not atypically - 'Got the bastards' was the tone.
These people are accused of dreadful things. If they prove to be guilty I'm all for long prison sentences, after due process. But at the moment they have the right to be deemed innocent until proven otherwise - or else what are we fighting to protect when we react against the bombs in the first place? It's certainly not up to people in my profession to decide who's guilty or otherwise, and I hope future coverage will show reporters bearing this in mind.