Newspaper Publishing

Posted by Kate Butler

The multitude of articles in the past few months regarding the 10 year anniversary of Diana’s death are staggering. Magazines from Time to Vanity Fair, and newspapers from all over the globe, have been spitting out countless pieces on the impact of the People’s Princess. It is interesting to see the sway that Diana obviously had on the press and how this influence has in many ways continued to exist long after her death.

It is an understatement to say that Diana was beloved by much of the world: every action was photographed by international paparazzi. Everyone had an opinion on her divorce with Charles, and pictures of Diana emerging after this split as a confident woman in her own right were on the front page of every newspaper.

Much of current media speculation on Diana is not simply a recurrence of unlimited adoration as it was in the past. Journalists & media watchers are wondering what Diana might have done had she lived. Some observers believe that Diana would have gone on to do numerous projects in Africa and around the world, much as she did in her lifetime. They imagine her to be as popular in the 21st century as she was in the 20th.

Other writers have not been as kind: they see Diana as being overrated and flaky. Their point now is that her influence was just a blip on the global radar, and that her star would have soon faded.

Diana was popular with a wide variety of people, and may have been able to remain relevant as the times changed. Regardless of what she would have been like in 2007, it is still valuable to understand her role in the late 20th century as a uniting force of different causes.

Posted by Kate Butler

In October 2006, the world lost an excellent investigative reporter when Anna Politkovskaya was gunned down in her Moscow apartment building elevator. She wrote extensively about the human rights abuses going on in her country, and was constantly at odds with many factions of the Russian political elite. It is gratifying to hear that her murderers will be brought to justice, but it is important to note the troubling nature of the case itself.

The fact that journalists critical of President Vladimir Putin are so likely to lose their lives shows how far Russia still is from being a true democracy. When the Cold War ended, the West was told that the new face of Russia would be one of free speech; it is becoming increasingly clear that this is not the case.

It is not clear how the 10 people arrested in the murder of Ms. Politkovskaya came together. Government are saying that the leadership for this killing came from outside of Russia, in an attempt to destabilize the political situation in the Kremlin.

If this is indeed true, it is extremely puzzling as to how it is that former Russian secret police and security personnel were involved with the murder. There is something particularly unsavory about the fact that officials so close to the government had a hand in the killing of a woman whose words greatly upset Mr. Putin.

If Russia is to become a true democracy, free speech must become far more entrenched into the political landscape than it is currently. Perhaps ten years from now we will look back on this murder as the turning point for the Russian government to get its act together regarding free press in this country. In the West, we must encourage and support measures to make this hope a reality.

Posted by Kate Butler

President Bush is a man who values loyalty above almost everything else. This was extremely evident during the Harriet Miers debacle, as well as the interminable reign of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. However, the President’s obsession with loyalty is perhaps best exemplified by his unwavering support of disgraced Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Gonzales has been accused of firing 9 U.S. Attorneys for political reasons, and this issue has become a major sticking point with the now Democratic Congress. The Justice Department is seen as completely dysfunctional by many, including a number of prominent Republicans. There is a major investigation into what happened, and Gonzales is also accused of lying to Congress about the firings. Even though there has not yet been a finding of guilt, the credibility of Gonzales, and those around him, has been absolutely shattered.

Bush’s inability to let people such as Gonzales go, even when his own political capital is being spent defending their indefensible mistakes, has created a problematic situation for those in charge of the direction of the White House in the next 18 months. There is a real sense from those close to him that Gonzales should have quit (or been fired himself) 5 or 6 months ago. As it stands now, Bush is seen by the public as having backed a dishonest member of his team, and is being skewered by the media for this support.

Gonzales should have left the Justice Department ages ago, but because of Bush’s insistence on absolute loyalty, this never happened. Instead, Gonzales stayed on in a way that has only hurt his boss, and may very well resonate in the minds of the public come voting time next November.

Posted by Kate Butler

How Michael Vick thought he could get away with being part of the Bad Newz Kennels disaster is completely beyond the imagination of most. Treating dogs in this despicable manner is simply unimaginable to much of the public. However, it is extremely positive that Vick has now pleaded guilty and awaits his punishment. It is interesting to note that just a few days ago, the Falcon’s star was still saying that he did nothing wrong, and knew little about what was going on with the dogs at the house.

In many ways, we have the media to thank for Vick’s sudden reversal: this was a story that simply would not die, and for a change, this is certainly a good thing.

How Vick has people around him that did not think to find out what he was doing in his personal life is quite astounding. The NFL is known for its’ paternalistic policies, and it is amazing that they did not have more knowledge of what Vick was doing at an earlier date. Vick himself must also be seen as rather naïve: how he allowed himself to be caught up in this mess as one of the biggest sports stars on the planet is difficult to comprehend.

The essential thing now is that the dogs at Bad Newz Kennels are now on their way to better homes and better lives. The dogs that did not make it out of this nightmare alive deserved much better than they got, but at least Vick’s confession of guilt must in some ways be seen as a validation of what these poor animals went through. The media’s coverage of Vick throughout this period has been important: we might not have seen his plea of guilty without it.

Posted by Kate Butler

As someone interested in mainstream journalism all over the world, it is always troubling to hear of the vast number of places where journalists are threatened, fired, beaten or even killed for attempting to cover events that certain people in charge find undesirable. This week, it is particularly disheartening to see the television channel Radio Caracas Television being targeted by the Chavez government.



While the political systems in the western world are anything but perfect, we do have, at least for the most part, a free press. The government cannot control what private (or public) broadcasters do or say. Privately owned companies can and do get rid of journalists or editors if they do not agree with what that person says or does, but the government does not have the power to limit the news that the free press covers.



As we all know, such privileges do not exist in many countries both near and far. Stories about news stations and papers being shut down for presenting unfavorable coverage of the governing group are far too frequent.



Radio Caracas Television has been operating as a private cable network since the government refused to renew its license on mid-July. Now, producers have until Wednesday to fall in line with the rest of the media in Venezuela and halt programming to broadcast any and all of Chavez’s speeches. RCTV says that they are an international station, not a Venezuelan one, and therefore should not have to follow the rules that the telecommunications watchdogs has given the ultimatum for.



Chavez has shown time and again that he does not like to be criticized by the press at home or abroad. While he may truly enjoy wide-spread support in his country (and undoubtedly around Latin America), his actions in this case are devastating. By giving a news station critical of him a deadline to comply with his wishes, Chavez has shown himself to be the incompetent, malicious leader that the U.S. so frequently paints him to be. If Chavez wants to win support in his own country and around the world, he would do well to lift the restrictions on RCTV and to let a free and fair media exist in his Venezuela.

Posted by Kate Butler

While John McCain had a good run in 2000 versus our current president, George W. Bush, it is inevitably time to say goodbye to his 2008 campaign.

Losing major figures from his camp, coupled with extremely poor fundraising numbers, means that McCain is essentially finished. The charismatic war veteran may try to stay in the race for another 6 months or so, but it is hard to see how he can possibly win when the media has so clearly given up on his chances.

It is difficult to know exactly why McCain has had so much trouble this time around, as he came in as a clear frontrunner. Numerous bloggers have given diverse reasons, all of which probably have some truth: he was somewhat of a fluke in 2000 when he won the New Hampshire primary, and has not overcome his outsider image to build real credibility with a conservative Republican base.

Regardless of why his campaign has faltered, it is evident that the mainstream media has effectively decided that McCain is yesterday’s news. The Straight Talk Express had extensive journalistic coverage in 2000, when journalists found him warm, talkative and quotable. This time around, journalists knew his general shtick, and were wary of his attempts in the last eight years to cozy up to extremist Christian leaders.

Getting the ‘dead in the water’ columns and reports from well-known journalists in mainstream papers and on major networks is anathema to the well-being of any hopeful. It is better to have little media coverage because they know nothing of your campaign, than to have coverage which says that your campaign is officially toast.

McCain ran a troubled campaign that seemed to be stuck in the past, and yet he had managed to coast so far this time around. He still may be near the top of the polls now, but look for these numbers to drop substantially in the next few weeks- when the media declares your campaign dead in the water, you know it’s time to abandon ship.

Posted by Kate Butler

Huge benefit concerts have always fascinated me: how organizers convince some of the biggest stars of the day to donate their time to trendy international issues never ceases to amaze. Therefore, I was unapologetically excited when I heard about the Live Earth day planned for this past Saturday, July 7th. The idea was that music stars from across the globe would take part in a truly worldwide experience in order to raise awareness and funds for environmental issues. As someone who considers herself to be relatively environmentally aware, I had big expectations for Live Earth.

From the very beginning, though, I began to suspect that this was not going to be particularly good viewing: the environment-focused videos were dull to watch from home and much of the music was surprisingly disappointing. The negative media coverage of the event, including numerous British reports on how un-environmentally conscious Madonna is, clouded my views on a usual favorite. The Police and Kelly Clarkson in New Jersey, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers in London were particularly dull, even though they were some of the bigger names on the list. The Public Service Announcements by stars like Will Ferrell and Jennifer Garner were also rather painful to watch.

It seems as though I was not alone in my disappointment: American television ratings for the event, covered by NBC, were extremely low. Only 2.7 million Americans tuned in to the 3 hour broadcast, the least viewed American program of the evening. Internationally, British numbers were also low, while Germany was at least respectable, with the television network covering the event in that country taking 6.3 market share during their coverage. Apparently 9 million people watched the concert online (breaking the record of Live 8 in 2005), but this still does not make the event seem extremely successful by any standards.

This type of concert will undoubtedly go on, and I will admit that this is a good thing. However, Live Earth 2007 was surely a disappointment: may the next organizers learn from this failure and bring something new next time around.

Posted by Kate Butler

The standoff at the Lal Masjid (the Red Mosque) in Islamabad ended in tragedy today, with a final casualty toll of near 60. Rebel leader Abdul Rashid Ghazi was given an ultimatum by Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf, but the radical Muslim leader refused to surrender, and was killed in action on Tuesday.

In the west, coverage of this story has been somewhat ambivalent. During much of the stand-off, hundreds of women and children, as well as the radical fighters themselves, were supposedly still in the mosque. On the weekend 21 people had died, and violence looked likely to continue.

During this time, the nature of the siege was such that western media outlets made an effort to report on this crisis. However, this coverage proved to be very hesitant. The debate over how the Pakistani government handled this incident is indicative of how the western media is loathe to differentiate between radicals and moderates in the Islamic religion. In many cases, Muslims from certain parts of the world are shown to fundamentally share the same values, whether this is really the case or not.

Reports on this crisis from media outlets in the area showed that many Pakistani citizens supported Musharraf actions and attempts to get the rebel leader to step down. Yet much of the American media coverage showed this incident to be simply another example of the desire of Muslims in Pakistan to embrace a Taliban-like code of morality.

It is hard for us in the west to get a true sense of the political and social climate in Pakistan and the surrounding areas when we are fed such biased reporting by mainstream outlets. It is clear that in this case, Abdul Rashid Ghazi was certainly not a part of the conventional thought in his country, and it is important to recognize Pakistani leadership in bringing this issue to a close, even if it was a tragic and terrifying incident.

Posted by Kate Butler

It’s been with great interest that I have followed the current saga in Ottawa this month, this time involving politicians from Atlantic Canada and our Prime Minister and his loyal henchmen. From what I’ve seen so far, I would have to say that for a man who tends to make few tactical errors, one such error was certainly made in the handling of this whole issue.

For those of you who have been living under a rock (or, of course, those who do not live in Canada), the current entanglement in Ottawa is nothing particularly new. This beautiful country of ours is constantly in battle over the increasingly complicated subject of equalization and the so-called fiscal imbalance.



Background

To give this issue a bit of context, we have to look at why it is that the eastern Canadian Premiers are feeling so hard-done by. According to New Brunswick Premier Rodney MacDonald, the federal Conservatives broke an election promise regarding off-shore oil resources and equalization payments.

Premier MacDonald and his counterpart in Newfoundland, Danny Williams, claim that they were told prior to the January 2006 election that non-renewable resources would be exempt from equalization payments. The Premiers are referencing the Atlantic Accord, signed by Williams and then-Prime Minister Paul Martin in February 2005, and basically promised Atlantic Canadians that they would get to keep off-shore oil resources, and not lose out on equalization payments from the federal government.



What It All Means

The interesting thing about this whole debacle is how badly the federal government has looked in the eyes of the media. It’s hard for me to see how the Atlantic Accord makes any sense at all, and yet, the way that the Harper government has handled this has meant that the Atlantic Premiers seem relatively coherent. As a western Canadian, I don’t tend to feel particularly strongly about the Atlantic Accord, and yet the fact that the Harper government has so blatantly broken a promise makes me (and the media and much of the interested public) suddenly care more.

Harper has been extremely careful in crafting his public image: above all, he wants to make sure that Canadians see him as mainstream and trustworthy. Therefore, incidents such as the equalization disaster of the past month, cannot be seen as anything but hugely problematic for the Conservatives; time will tell whether these problems dissolve away, or whether the CPC is in real trouble.

Posted by Kate Butler

Like most celebrities, Paris Hilton has become accustomed to a culture that puts famous people on an incredible pedestal. She gets enormous media coverage wherever she goes, and can pretty much be guaranteed to be the topic of at least one gossip magazine a week. Of course, it's not just Paris that we see ad nausea in the media: Angelina’s latest pregnancy scare, Nicole Richie’s eating issues and Lindsay Lohan’s rehab problems are all equally given the royal treatment.

While many of us complain that the mainstream media has gone completely overboard in its’ toleration and promotion of celebrities and their behavior, we rarely see our complaints actually having an effect. This, however, is exactly what has happened in the aftermath of Paris-gate: NBC, a major news outlet, has decided to withdraw their offer of a $1 million interview deal with Ms. Hilton, presumably due to the outcry from the general public.

It was assumed by the major media outlets that there would be a big fight to get the first exclusive interview with Paris. ABC wanted Barbara Walters to do it, and CBS thought that they had a shot at it too. NBC considered themselves to be the winners, therefore, when they announced on the weekend that Meredith Vieira would be conducting this oh-so-important interview with the Hilton heiress, where Paris would receive a cool one million dollars for simply describing life on the inside.

What NBC did not expect, though, was that public outrage at this deal, and a general feeling of ambivalence toward Paris would create a situation where they had to revoke their offer (which they now claim was only a framework and so they did not officially cancel it).

Whichever way you slice this story, it’s clear that bloggers everywhere have a reason to pat themselves on the back today: the world was spared what would have been an insipid, inane interview with an obnoxious 20-something thanks to their angry rants.

Paris Hilton seems to believe that now that she is out of jail and ready to admit to anyone that will listen to her that she has truly changed, it is refreshing to see that in this case, the people still have the power.