Shuarian’s Weblog

One of my main criticism with TV lies in its inherent (or believed to be inherent) need to make use of its multimedia (sound and visuals) capability. Movies sometimes make good and wonderful use of these possibilities (but are usually also better enjoyed on a big screen), while normal TV programmes often don’t.

Remaining solely in the news / information sector, that need can become a disadvantage, as the content gets subdued by an irrelevant, misleading or confusing combination of audio and visuals.

Newspaper, on the other hand, only transfer content visually. Thus even when a newspaper uses different visuals methods (like text and pictures) they don’t necessarily interfere, as they can be viewed subsequently instead of simultaneously. What’s more, a newspaper can use the visuals in accordance with the needs of the content.

I was even more disappointed, then, to find a prime example of a meaningless use of visuals in the current issue (No. 37) of the German weekly Die Zeit - a newspaper I avidly read, and which I value greatly.

Case in point: Their economy section features a series on rich people. The series opens with an article which describes the differences between old-money and newcomers, and touches also their different spending habits as well as the resulting social and economical impacts. That article is accompanied by a rather large picture, probably meant to draw people in:

Although not necessary, the picture is still fair game: The building shown is the casino in Monaco, which is a meeting point of rich people and gets featured prominently in the article itself.

As the article continues to the next page, an infographic is displayed. It shows the number of millionaires per country. Which seems to be a bit out of place, as the absolute number of millionaires and their distribution doesn’t matter to the article’s points, namely that there are more millionaires than before and that their assets are out-pacing normal economical growth. Nor does the distribution per country.

Yet it gets worse, as the same page also has a list of the ten richest people in the world, adjoint by their pictures, estimated assets and the industry sectors from which they’ve earned their fortunes. Still, both the infographic and the list offer information which is at least in some way related to the main topic.

Then there’s a a small article about a club in London, a club whose members emphasise family tradition and influence higher that mere assets:

The article has a small picture of the club’s location, which isn’t really necessary to the understanding of the content yet doesn’t distract.

The absolut low-point, however, comes from another article. It portraits an entrepreneur from China who is among the richest people in his country. The article itself is quite nice - it has some background on his life; information on his company; some critical voices about his staged behaviour, and more. And then there’s the large picture to the article, which shows two women dancing and is titled “night life in a noble club in China“:

So, maybe the picture’s there because the portrayed man owns some clubs? Or maybe because he enjoys partying? I don’t know, because there’s no mention of clubs or night life anywhere in the article. So I can only assume that the author found the life of a selfmade billionaire in communist China so boring he couldn’t write more about it. Or maybe the newspaper editors wanted to sex up the article by including a picture of partying women?

Who knows, but alas, what a waste of space.

The media world lives from selling news. News can, in some ways, be seen like every other market commodity. There’s news which sells well, and news which doesn’t.

The reality, however, is more complex; the demand cannot be easily quantified, but that goes for every other good out there, too. The important distinction then is that real news cannot be produced. Both are bad business factors, thus the media tries to control these unknowns.

On the supply side, they screen news not only by its relevance, but also by the interest they think their typical customer will show. And in order to absorb the unpredictable quantity of news, no-news like gossip, celebrities focused articles or evergreens (and, to be provocative, opinion columns) gets produced.

Now that there’s a commodity to sell, it has to be sold to the customer. This gets done, like with other goods, by marketing it. For news, this means for example (a) placing the commodity as the first on the marketplace, i.e. getting the news out fast, and (b) creating the illusion of the news being of significant value.

Case in point — Apparently, today a power outage caused the two national TV stations of Switzerland to interrupt their airing in large parts of the country for one to one and a half hour. I can, of course, understand that something like this is really life-threatening, especially as such important events like a Formula One race and the final ceremony of the Olympics were supposed to be on air.

So, how does one of the largest newspaper of Switzerland, the Tages-Anzeiger, handle such an incident? They put it on the frontpage of their website, and even several hours after the incident, the corresponding article still is presented as one of the top tree events of the day.

(click on the image for a larger version)

The headline, not surprisingly, labels the power outage as historical.

If you can read German, it’s quite interesting to compare the coverage of the Tages-Anzeiger with the one by another Swiss newspaper, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ); the latter appearing to be more informative.

Is this better journalism the NZZ displays there? Or just the sign of another customer profile they have in their business model?

There’s so much going on at school (final weeks for exams) and work that I didn’t have time to write much - anything - for this blog. You surely noticed. But today I’ve stumbled upon a story which is worth being told, and which is a sad reflection on media and society.

 
June 8, 1972

Photo: Nick Ut/AP

On June 8, 1972, during the Vietnam War, Nick Ut made a photograph showing terrified children running away from a napalm attack on their home village. Nick Ut later won the Pulitzer prize for his photo, which was shown all over the world as one of the many images depicting the full horror of war. The background events to the photo are explained in the read worthy article The Bigger Picture.

 
June 8, 2007

Photo: Nick Ut/AP

35 years later, the same photographer makes another photo which goes around the world. It shows a crying Paris Hilton who got sent back to jail to serve the 45-day sentence she was convicted to for violating the terms of an existing probation.

I leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions.

(Found via Andrew Sullivan’s The Daily Dish)

 
 
Update 14 June 2007

Well, this entry seems to drive many visitors to my blog. As I didn’t find out the connection between these two photographs on my own, I again want to credit my source, Andrew Sullivan’s The Daily Dish. That done, there were two reasons I started to write this amendment:

First, I’ve updated the original post to better credit the photographer.

Second, the truth of the above post got questioned. Which is fair enough, so I’d like to address these doubts: The date and authorship of the first picture can be verified through the already quoted article, The Bigger Picture, the wikipedia article on Kim Phuc (the naked girl in the centre of the image), or via a google search for “june 8 1972″ + vietnam, which leads to multiple corresponding references. The date and authorship of the second photograph can be verified directly at the website of the Associated Press. In addition, articles on wikipedia as well as other news sources (N.Y. Daily News or the German Netzeitung) confirm the above information.

Ah, I knew the new media tag (used for meta discussion about media in general, in contrast to more specific tags like movies) would come in handy. Today’s reason to write yet again about the Swiss media scene is caused by a favourite pet peeve of mine, the news programme Tagesschau, which gets aired by SF.

In the news show of January 20, 2007, one of the topics was Sen. Hillary Clinton’s announcement to seek the nomination of the Democratic Party for the US Presidential Election in 2008.

You can watch the news segment online (in German).

So, how many mistakes and inaccuracies can one do in a segment which lasts for only 1.17 minutes? Apparently, six:

1) Quote: “Sie hat ein Wahlkampf Budget von 14 Millionen Dollar” (she has a campaign budget of 14 Mio. USD)

That’s only partially correct. Her campaing money *currently* amounts to 14 Million USD (source: LA Times and others). However, that’s hardly her whole *budget*. Elections, especially in the United States, are costly. With Hillary Clinton now officially in the race, you can expect her campaign treasure (and that of other contenders) to grow significantly. It appears that Sen. Hillary Clinton might also opt out of the federal election funding. That’s seen as step to rise more money than otherwise possible, in a race which is supposed to become the most expensive election in history so far:

The chairman of the Federal Election Commission yesterday predicted that 2008 will produce the first $1 billion presidential race and that the $500 million that each party’s candidate will need to compete will severely limit the field of contenders

Source: The Washington Times: Road to White House may cost $1 billion

[Update January 22, 2007] And indeed, Howard Wolfson, spokesman of Hillary Clinton, confirms her intention to opt out of public fundings:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-New York) is the first top-tier candidate to tip her hand that she intends to leave the public money on the table. Senior Clinton advisor Howard Wolfson said by e-mail Sunday that she would not take matching funds in the primary campaign or, if she wins the Democratic nomination, in the general election. [Emphasis added]

Source: Los Angeles Times: Just $83.8 million? No thanks

2) Quote: “Hillary Clinton wäre die allererste Frau, die sich um die Präsidentschaft der USA bewirbt” (Hillary Clinton would be the first women to seek the US Presidency)

She wouldn’t be the first female candidate for the US Presidency. That was done before. She also isn’t the first woman to seek the nomination of the Democratic Party, that honour goes to Shirely Chisholm in 1972. As early (or as late) as 1964, Margaret Chase Smith was trying to win the nomination of the Republican Party.

If elected in the primaries, however, she would become the first female candidate to run for the US Presidency for one of the two major parties.

3) Quote: “Hillary ist die Ex-Frau von Ex-Präsident Clinton” (Hillary is the former wife of former president Clinton)

Ouch, being divorced will be a severe handicap for her in the race. Only, she is still married to former President Bill Clinton.

It’s interesting to note that the media already uses some of her carefully outlined terms. It was a smart move by her to refer to herself mostly as ‘Hillary’, and not Hillary Clinton or - even worse - just Clinton. Thus it’s also Hillary for President and Vote Hillary (see http://www.votehillary.org/).

4) Quote: “Sie gehört zu jenen Demokraten, die vehement einen US Truppenabzug fordern, und die Bush Regierung kritisieren” (She’s among those Democrats who vehemently demand a withdrawal of US troops and criticise the Bush administration)

There’s no doubt that she does criticise President Bush, although it would be wrong to call her a sharp critic so far. As for her stance on the war, the above attribution is disputable. She voted yes on authorizing use of military force against Iraq in 2002. She’s saying she regrets Bush’s handling of the war, but she does not regret her vote in 2002, and won’t recant it (Source: On The Issues: Hillary Clinton). Her stance on withdrawal can hardly be called vehemently, as she’s on record calling an immediate withdrawal of US troops a big mistake.

Note: I actually agree that an immediate withdrawal (as opposed to a phased withdrawal, for example) probably isn’t the right solution in the United States’ seemingly lose-lose situation in Iraq. However, given that other Democrats are demanding just that, her stance can hardly be called vehement, especially since she also was late and ambiguous in her call for withdrawal (no matter what kind).

5) Quote: “Ihr schärfster Konkurrent dürfte der demokratische Senator Barack Obama sein” (Her strongest opponent seems to be Sen. Barack Obama)

That’s only half true. Polls from the first primary states (which are decisive for the campaigns), indicate that former Sen. John Edwards should be mentioned alongside Sen. Barack Obama. Sources: Zogby polls of likely voters for Iowa and New Hampshire - just take a look at them and you’ll understand my reasoning.

6) Quote: “(Barack Obama ist) der erste schwarze Kandidat” ([Barack Obama is] the first black candidate)

Remember the part where I mentioned Sen. Hillary Clinton is not the first female aspirant? Well, despite the above quote, neither is Sen. Barack Obama the first black candidate. The already mentioned Shirley Chisholm was Afro-American, too. Maybe you also have heard of Jesse Jackson? He was seeking the nomination in 1984, and again in 1988. Maybe that’s too long ago? Does Rev. Al Sharpton ring a bell? He was seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party in 2004. Like Sen. Hillary Clinton, however, if elected during the primary elections, Sen. Barack Obama would be the first black candidate of the general elections. At least for the two major parties, I wasn’t able to digg up any useful information regarding possible runs by black third party candidates.

***

Of course, the bids by Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are noteworthy insofar as they both appear to have a realistic chance of winning the general election in 2008 - something the former candidates didn’t (to my knowledge). However, that doesn’t mean they should be portrayed as being two brave souls on the forefront of gender and race equality. That’s a media spin, and nothing more.

On Tuesday, 12 December 2006, the team behind the pendlerblog announced the end of their blog. For those of you who don’t know them, the pendlerblog is was a so called watchblog, examining and monitoring the popular news outlet 20 Minuten. And believe me, there was always much to criticise (see my recent blog post on Coincidence in the Age of Infotainment). While I generally make an effort to not read 20 Minuten, and thus wasn’t overly interested in the penderblog, I still applaud them for their honest, funny and revealing effort. They will be missed.

One day after the pendlerblog was shut down, a colleague of mine was reading 20 Minuten and brought a clear mistake to my eyes. As a homage to the pendlerblog, I’d like to share it with you:

In case you’re not familiar with terms from the financial markets, here’s a quote from Wikipedia:

A bull market is a prolonged period of time when prices are rising in a financial market faster than their historical average, in contrast to a bear market which is a prolonged period of time when prices are falling.

Investors can be described as having bullish or bearish sentiments. Market trends are witnessed when bulls (buyers) outnumber bears (sellers), or vice versa, consistently over time.

Conculding, contrary to the headline from the article, Credit Suisse (CS) is actually predicting a bullish market, while Pictet has a slightly more bearish outlook.

I’ve finally finished this post which has collected dust for months. And yes, I’m rumbling. But today, nothing’s going to stop me :-)

Coincidence in the Age of Infotainment…

There’s nothing spectacular about the report on national security, published by the Swiss Federal Department of Justice and Police, and released May 30th, 2006. While the headline on the press release sounds a bit alarming, the rest of the text is not.

The media, however, looks at the report from a different angle: risk of terrorism rising in Switzerland (Terrorgefahr in der Schweiz steigt; source: NZZ). Given that the article by the NZZ was published on the very same day the report was published, one has to wonder if anyone actually read through the full version, which has 95 pages and is available as PDF.

I highly doubt it; instead, the media (NZZ is just one example) was probably happy enough to have a new and sexy headline. Or did the media get its claims from other sources?

Just two days later, on June 1st, 2006, the Swiss Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sports released their Rüstungsprogramm 2006, requesting more fundings in order to fulfil its military and protectional duties. One of the reasons citied (and exaggeratedly reported on) was the rising danger of terrorism. Of course, when the media calls, the political parties answer. The CVP, for example, supports the request. According to the CVP, the Swiss military has to be ready in cases of terror alerts, and must be able to protect valuable resources, buildings and other possible targets.

And I wonder if this is all is just coincidence? In any way, the Swiss military, in its current shape and organisation, is not the right answer to terrorism. Should it chase terrorist with their tanks? No, thanks. The fight against terrorism, especially in Switzerland, should focus on more realistic scenarios. Switzerland could and should play an important role in diplomacy. Switzerland could and should take a leading role in its treatment and integration of foreigners in Switzerland. Switzerland could and should be prepared for emergencies, but by way of information gathering, prevention and organising, and not by map exercises (like some US agencies do). And finally, Switzerland should not, and should not be allowed to, disregard, limit or control the civil rights of its citizens.

…the Culture of Fear…

While I don’t think that we in Switzerland live in a culture of fear, I often wonder about the general feeling of fear and uncertainty. Take this survey by ACNielsen as an example. Of the 40 countries covered, the sampled Swiss citizens were among the ones most worried about terrorism. Percent wise, Swiss citizens were more worried than people living in the United States or England. And while the difference to these two countries probably is within the margin of error, I’m still very surprised.

However, I’m a bit sceptical about the above survey. Unfortunately, it doesn’t offer any information on its methods, or raw data. If you take a look at the annual ‘Worry Barometer‘ by Credit Suisse, other concerns top terrorism by a wide and supporting margin (see Slide 3).

Maybe Swiss people are just easily scared? This could at least explain why Switzerland is one of the best insured countries of the world? Well, my dear, fellow Swiss citizens: Thanks for your worries. But please don’t forget that we have the privilege to live in a wonderful and peaceful country. And while we certainly must try our best to keep and improve upon that status, we also should not forget all the people living a less prosperous life. By virtue of great privilege comes great responsibility.

…and other Rumblings

Back to the media scene. While there are some excellent sources (the beloved author of this blog is a passionate reader of Die Zeit, Foreign Affairs and Das Magazin, for example), many are not.

Take the national TV station SF as an example. It clearly has the mandate to inform the people. Yet its two most prominent news progamms are almost worthless. ‘10 vor 10′, the flagship which is supposed to deliver background information, tampers in infotainment waters. The ‘Tagesschau’, the daily news show, is happy with presenting its viewers with MTV-esque clip sequences. In addition, they also have an unbelievable talent for asking obvious questions. In an interview about Iran’s nuclear programm their questions were boring. What’s worse, they didn’t even take into account the answers of their interview partner (Ulrich Tilgner), but stuck to their pre-made questions.

That this can be done better is proven on a daily basis by some fine shows on stations such as ARTE, ZDF and 3sat. Even SF actually has some good programms, but fails to promote and expand them. Do they lack faith in the intelligence of their viewers?

Unfortunately, the print media isn’t always better. The very popular newslet ‘20min’ reprints press releases and adds some articles on nightlife and celebrities to the juice. The few articles they write by themselves are incoherent at best. For example, their headline talks about ‘rund 50′ (about 50 people). In the following text, they mention ‘etwa drei Dutzend Personen’ (circa three dozen persons). By all accounts, that are 36 people. Or are it ‘gegen 40 personen’ (up to 40 persons), as the article later claims?

Brave new world.