The Daily Mail cleverly placed the article alongside images of Brick looking well, fairly average. This unsurprising combination led to a storm of internet commentary, with users insisting that Brick was delusional, arrogant and not pretty enough to justify her self-praise. Not all this negative commentary was from women, however, I’m sure the female hostility was enough to persuade Brick that these comments were again the result of jealous and bitter females.

To add to the media frenzy, rumours were spreading yesterday that Brick is set to seal a deal with Celebrity Big Brother. She is thought to be close to signing an estimated £50,000 deal as Big Bother bosses are understood to be desperate to capitalise on her outrageous opinions. Unfortunately, it seems her 15 minutes of fame is not yet over and all this could make her very rich lady indeed.

The campaign was fronted by celebrities including Rio Ferdinand, Katie Price and Cher Lloyd, all of whom took payment in return for advertising Snickers on their Twitter. The ASA has launched an investigation into Snickers’ innovative campaign following confusion surrounding the commercial nature of the activity. The ASA are reported to have received two complaints from members of the public regarding the tweets last week, prompting the investigation.

The campaign gets the celebrities to tweet about something Snickers thinks would be out of character. Then an hour later they reveal they weren’t feeling themselves because they hadn’t eaten Snickers recently.  For example Katie Price tweeted from her @MissKatiePrice account last week about the Eurozone debt problems and China’s GDP rating, before revealing that she hadn’t been herself because she was too hungry. She then tweeted the Snickers strapline, “You’re not you when you’re hungry @snickersUK #hungry #spon” and a picture of her holding a Snickers bar.

As crass as the campaign may be, it certainly got people talking and watching the account for further tweets. However, it is in no way without considerable flaws. For example, in Katie Prices stunt, the campaign implied that hunger made Jordan more intelligent and that a Snickers would turn her back to normal, not necessarily a positive thing given her public perception as being rather unintelligent. ]]> http://www.harrietsime.com/?feed=rss2&p=212 0 http://www.harrietsime.com/?p=195 http://www.harrietsime.com/?p=195#comments Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:55:22 +0000 Harrietsime http://www.harrietsime.com/?p=195 The arrival of a cardigan-wearing Rupert Murdoch on Twitter two weeks ago has caused quite a stir, with many people clamoring to see him slip up.

The 80 year-old’s first few ‘tweets’ were rather awkward, however, it appears as though he is getting used to the site. Yesterday, he used the site to tell all his 136,087 followers that the search engine Google is a “piracy leader”.

The News Corp Executive tweeted: “Piracy leader is Google who streams movies free, sells advts around them. No wonder pouring millions into lobbying”

A short time later, he tweeted:  “Film making risky as hell. This has led to less, hurting writers, actors, all concerned”

The comments against the search engine were some of many since Murdoch launched his Twitter account on January 1^st.

For example, Mr Murdoch created more problems for himself after tweeting about the UK’s bank holiday: “Maybe Brits have too many holidays for [a] broke country!”

He deleted the comment shortly afterwards but was too late to prevent hundreds of other users retweeting the comment. Several of whom noted that Mr Murdoch was on the Caribbean island of Saint Barthelemy at the time and added the hashtag #murdochdeleted tweets.

The media tycoon initially only followed four people, one of which was Lord Alan Sugar. However, Murdoch was quick to ‘unfollow’ Sugar as the entrepreneur tweeted: “I wonder if my old pal @rupertmurdoch is eying up Twitter to buy or invest in it. He missed out on Facebook and My Space.. not a great deal”.

Sensing a snub, Lord Sugar then tweeted: “@rupertmurdoch Why did you un follow me did you see too many press articles saying you only follow 4 people one of which was me ??”

According to tentative analyst estimates, over one million people received an iPad or Kindle on Christmas Day this year. However, the increasing popularity of such devices has been said to contribute to the already wavering sales of printed newspapers.

News organisations, with knowledge of this trend, have attempted to adapt to the changing nature that people consume news. For example, newspaper publishers this year broke a
tradition that dates back to 1912, when The Sunday Times, for the first time in its 190 year history, produced an online version of its newspaper on Christmas Day.

As well as online editions on Christmas Day, many other news organisations produced online versions of newspapers on Boxing Day in order to showcase their work and give new iPad and kindle owners something to read. Traditionally a very quiet period for newspaper publishers has now become a particularly busy period.

Obviously, a major impact of these extremely popular devices is that it has massively increased digital readership of online newspapers. For example, The Daily Mail now has 5 million unique visitors to its online website, in comparison to its printed sale of just 2 million.

Ten years ago, The Daily Mirror sold more than 2.5 million newspapers a day; today its readership is down 55%, to just over 1.1 million readers. In the last year alone, we’ve seen printed sales decline for daily broadsheets by 10% and by 5% for daily tabloids, the Guardian has reported.

However, whether or not these devices are contributing to a further decline, I am very uncertain. Like I suspect a lot of other people, I will be using my Kindle purely for reading novels, more of a practicality for reading whilst travelling, than a new way of consuming news.

Whether the newspaper industry will succeed with tablet growth I believe will entirely depend on whether people will pay as much to subscribe on a tablet as they do when purchasing a print newspaper. Although I consume a lot of news online, I personally prefer to read print versions of newspapers, irrespective of the costs, and I believe that it is this that will keep the printed newspaper industry from completely dying….just.

Since then, the show has faced yet more scrutiny as it has been announced as the most complained about TV show of 2011. The Channel 5 host Matthew Wright used a catchphrase from the TV detective series Taggart to describe the murder of a teenager in Scotland during an episode aired on December 6, 2011. The edition of the Wright Stuff, in which the presenter attempted a Scottish accent when saying ‘there’s been another murder’, caused 2,200 viewers to complain to Ofcom.

The second most complained about show this year was Dancing on Ice, in which outspoken judge Jason Gardiner told the shows head coach Karen Barber during an episode  ’If your opinion mattered you’d still be on the panel,’ as she tried to defend a contestant. The episode prompted 784 viewers to complain to the media regulator.

The infamous appearance of Jeremy Clarkson on the One Show was Ofcom’s third most complained about TV show this year. Ofcom received 763 complaints about Clarkson’s appearance, in which he ranted that striking public sector workers should be ‘executed in front of their families’.

Clarkson made another appearance in the top 10 after 175 people complained about a Top Gear episode broadcast in January in which the presenters referred to Mexicans  as ‘lazy, feckless [and] flatulent’.

The X-factor won the prize for the highest number of individual episodes complained about over the course of the year – mainly in relation to wannabe-rockstar Frankie Cocozza and his infamous transgressions. Over 200 people complained about the singer’s behaviour, including swearing before the 9pm watershed and glamourising alcohol abuse in clips showing him partying, the Guardian has reported. However, it was the teenager’s drug boasts, which led him to be booted off the show in early November, which sparked the most anger among viewers.

In total, the 15 editions of the x-factor prompted 753 viewers to complain to the media regulator.

In order to dish the dirt, the tabloid had to go back to an incident which happened six years before 20 year-old Jesy Neson was even born.

Eight million viewers were led to believe the dramatic footage of a polar bear tending to her newborn cubs during the ‘Winter’ episode had been captured by BBC cameramen inside a sub-zero cave in the Arctic, when in fact; it was filmed in a Dutch zoo using fake snow.

The fifth episode of the highly praised series which ended its run last week, began by showing genuine footage of a male polar bear scavenging for food during the Arctic winter. As blizzards filled the screen, Sir David Attenborough explained: “He must live on his resources. This is a time to scrape by.”  As the footage shifted to a close-up of a female polar bear hibernating with her newborn cubs, Attenborough said: “But on lee-side slopes, beneath the snow, new lives are beginning.”

The commentary during the footage was evidently misleading as it insinuated that the birth occurred underneath the frozen hillside, in the polar bears natural environment.

While I am a massive fan of both the series and David Attenborough himself, I find the revelations rather troubling. There needs to be an element of transparency with programmes such as this and anything contrived should have been stated. Understandably, explaining that the footage was shot under a controlled environment in a zoo would have ruined the atmosphere of the programme, however, a simple “this clip, filmed in captivity..” would not have disrupted the programme, and there would be no issue.

In defense of the footage, the shows executive producer Alastair Fothergill insisted that the narration was not misleading. He said: “We were very careful not to specifically refer to our polar bear cubs; if you read the commentary it talks very generally about polar bears in the plural.” The carefully worded commentary therefore suggests that the producers were aware that what they were doing could potentially be misleading to the viewer.

In a further blow to Frozen Planet fans, it emerged yesterday that the BBC producers also misled viewers about footage of a frozen caterpillar. In the ‘Spring’ episode, Sir David said: “Beneath the rock the caterpillar is out of the wind, but the cold penetrates deep into the ground. Soon its heart stops beating, it ceases to breathe, and its body starts to freeze – first its gut, then its blood.” The footage included a shot of the caterpillars natural habitat above ground, and a close-up of the creature beginning to freeze underneath snow. Deceivingly, however, this close-up footage was in fact filmed in an artificial habitat – inside a box.

Saying all this, my love and loyalty to the programme has not been jaded. The series has shown us worlds and scenarios we could only dream of witnessing, and I understand that some scenes could not have been shot in the natural habitat. Unfortunately though, I will, like I presume a lot of other people, now watch documentaries such as this with an element of mistrust and uncertainty.

Firstly we had the channel 5 presenter Mathew Wright controversially asking via a phone-in debate “Foxy-Knoxy: Would ya?” which led several viewers to complain to the media regulator Ofcom. Gaffe-prone Wright claimed that Knox was “undeniably fit and loved wild sex” and discussed with panellists and viewers whether they would take Amanda Knox home in light of her acquittal for murder. Wright was forced to offer an on-air apology admitting he had made “front page news for all the wrong reasons”.

Now we have heard that the Mail Online has been censored by the Press Complaints Commission after it published the incorrect version of the Amanda Knox case, claiming that she had lost her appeal. The article appeared on the website on the 3^rd October for around ninety seconds under the headline “Guilty: Amanda Knox looks stunned as appeal against murder conviction is rejected” before it was replaced with an article reporting the correct outcome.

The incorrect article discussed Knox’s reaction to the verdict, claiming that she “sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears”. It further claimed that Meredith Kercher’s family “remained expressionless, staring straight ahead, glancing over just once at the distraught Knox family”. These reactions were clearly entirely untrue and presupposed, which raises questions over the quality, accuracy and reliability of the media coverage during such high-profile cases.

In defence of its mistake, The Daily Mail issued an online apology claiming that it is standard practice for newspapers to be prepared in advance during such high-profile cases and that several other news outlets had also initially published the incorrect verdict. This is understood to include The Sun website, Sky News and The Guardian’s live blog, though the Mail appeared to be the only news outlet that ran a full-length article. This apology, however, does little to regain our trust and confidence in the coverage we receive from such outlets.

So many graduates...so few jobs

Every year, thousands of students like me complete journalism related courses in the hope of landing a fun and exciting job in the media industry. But with the combination of the economic downturn and a very competitive industry,  most journalism graduates leave the comfy world of academia in a state of panic.

With hundreds of  people applying for each post, competition is fierce and the need for an outstanding CV has never been more important.

Before entering university, I presumed that with good grades and lots of enthusiasm, a job would be guaranteed come graduation. However, I have come to realise that without a variety of placements on the CV, finding a job can be extremely difficult as experience  has become the key ingredient when finding a journalism related job.

Unfortunately, the easiest way to land these placements is through the old “who you know” scenario (one of which I have managed/ have been forced to exploit). Throughout my time at university, I applied to every national newspaper time after time, never to hear anything back. But through using my parents/ parents friends/ friends of parents friends contacts (!!!), I managed to bag myself placements at two national newspapers (two of which I applied several times through the traditional route, never to have any form of response).

During all my work placements (both at local, regional and national companies), I have asked the standard question – “what  is the most important thing to have when finding a job in the journalism industry” and I have yet to find any journalists that haven’t put experience right at the top.

Having graduated in July this year and with trust in these peoples advice, I have decided to take the year out to primarily focus on gaining more experience within the industry in order to spruce up my CV and up my chances of getting a job. Lets just hope it works…!

One of the most common images used by the UK newspapers to represent the dictators death

The gruesome media coverage of the capture and death of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has provoked widespread objection throughout the online world.

The use of disturbing  images of Gaddafi’s bloody demise were spread all over the UK’s national newspapers today, sparking great debate on websites such as Twitter, the Guardian and the BBC. Many users of the sites argued that the images were unnecessarily explicit and too easily accessible to children.

Even by the standards of the UK’s shock hungry newspapers, the images were unusually graphic. The Daily Mail’s coverage was by far the worst, with the online edition being made up of no more than 29 gruesome images of the bloodied former leader. The articles headline boasts of the repugnant pictures,  even suggesting that the articles “new video shows blood pouring from dictator”. Take a look…if you can bear it –  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051361/GADDAFI-DEAD-VIDEO-Dictator-begs-life-summary-execution.html

Horrific images of Gaddafi’s fatal and bloody wounds were also shown on the BBC (both on the BBCs 24 news channel and the BBCs 6pm and 10pm bulletins). The 6pm news bulletin (before the watershed) in no way held back in its representation of Gadaffi in his final moments. The explicit imagery which was used to portray the incident led to widespread criticism from the general public, forcing the BBC to release a statement.

Talking in defence of the BBCs coverage, head of the BBC multimedia newsroom Mary Hockaday claimed that  the use of the images were used to convey the scale of Thursday’s “dramatic and gruesome events”  and that as a news organisation their “role is to report what happened, and that can include shocking and disturbing things”.

Some have agreed with Hockaday, claiming that the images were “shocking but necessary” while others have argued that there is “no justifiable reason why the casual viewer should be forced to see such images”.

Although I agree that the public needed to see certain pictures of Gaddafi for confirmation that the evil dictator was dead, I believe that the incessant  use of such gruesome imagery was highly unnecessary. During my time as a student I carried out extensive research on the media’s use of images during times of death and destruction, which involved analysing explicit imagery from a variety of platforms (mainly in regards to death during natural disasters). However,  the images I have seen splashed all over the press today,  have, by far, been the most graphic and distressing I have ever witnessed.