Hello blogchums, I wonder if anyone out there fancies helping me with an article I am writing for our work newsletter.
I'm doing a little analysis of the MediaGuardian 100* list that was published on Monday. The list is supposedly indicative of a shifting balance of power in the UK away from traditional media and towards digital media. I'm interested in hearing anyone's opinions on whether it does genuinely represent a shift in who has media power and influence these days, and if so, in what way? Also, was there anything you found particularly surprising or interesting about the list?
Feel free to comment (anonymously or otherwise) in the comments box, or send me an email. I'll be writing it tomorrow morning, so any time today is good.
* Sub required, but it's free. Although still annoying.
About Bach and Keats
1 day ago
11 comments:
As usual with the Meeja G. list, the placings often seem apples-and-oranges arbitrary, there's confusion as to whether its a domestic or international list, and there's the usual "all editors must have prizes" attitude to newspapers.
Example: Russell T Davies the most powerful TV producer? There are 20 you could put above him (but David Tennant is at 24 *just ahead of Rupert Murdoch's worldwide consigliere*, so perhaps the list was compiled by a Doctor Who fan who just threw numbered pieces of paper in the air), and if you're puting in American Web2.0 people with international influence, then why not the TV producers and network heads and corporate sponsors, who have infinitely more input on what we see than does Russell T Davies?
And how does the Media Guardian most noticably recognise developing trends in digital media? By naming Emily Bell...
They have the 1-2-3 right though. 4 should be Hurley and Chen; 5 Zennstrom/Friis; 6 the guy who sells DVDs on Holloway Road and 7-99 a series of Japanese and Californian guys who are about to change the ways we do *everything*. 100: Emily Bell. Got to roll the logs somehow. Talking of which, as lists go the Vanity Fair "New Establishment 100" is a useful counterpoint and *much* more interesting...
Thanks, chuffy!, this is good stuff. The RTD thing (he's in there as a writer as well as a producer) and the David Tennant thing are just further examples of how the entire media establishment seems to have gone bats over Doctor Who, for reasons I am having trouble understanding. I mean, it's not great, is it? It's sometimes watchable, but if you detach yourself from nostalgia and look at it as actual television, a lot of it is appalling, especially the bits RTD writes himself. And why Tennant on the list and not (for example) John Simm, who surely has equal right to be there?
Agree about Hurley and Chen, not so much about Zennstrom and Friis, not yet anyway, how many people are using Joost at the moment? But if we're talking about who currently has power over what American television we see in the UK, the BitTorrent guy should be in the top five, right above the bloke who sells DVDs on Holloway Road.
The non-establishment bloggers on the list can be counted on the fingers of one finger, so that's us firmly put in our place!
Off to look at the Vanity Fair list now...
On reflection, the list isn't of the 100 most powerful media movers, it's of the 100 people that the Media Guardian is most likely to write about...
I like the way the Telegraph gets praised for embracing the digital world, while the Indy gets praised for resisting the lure of the digital world. Every strategy a winner!
I don't think they pretend the entire list is rigorously thought through, but is there more to stimulate debate. They do think very hard about the Top 10 (and the bottom 10 too).
As you would expect, I think it reflects the Guardian's obsession with all things internety. We never used to think that the people who built transmitters or printing presses were influential, only the people who populated them with content. But we now want to credit people who create internet infrastructures. Google is a huge brand and a big company, but is it really that influential culturally? I'd say that My Space is more significant which takes you back to Murdoch. Personally I think it's absurd to say that the BBC and Murdoch are not the most influential over the totality of British media; they are just less sexy and newsworthy. And their treatment of Channel 4 was scabby, whatever you think of them.
Where was the person who made Britain's Got Talent, which was an absolute phenomenon, and all my 12 year old and his mates could talk about for 2 weeks, mainly thinking up ways to destroy the cute 6 year old Connie? Distasteful but true.
I see two of my employers have dropped out of the top 100 altogether.
Hahahahaha losers.
The best bit about all this internet business is the effect it's had on marketing and advertising. A few years ago when you googled a brand you'd get their own self-congratulating website at the top of the list, but these days the first thing you see is a handful of bloggers telling the truth about their products whether they like it or not.
Traditional print advertising in newspapers and magazines has lost its impact, and, until marketing companies get a bit more inventive with 'net advertsising, we're in this great period where word of mouth really is so much stronger — and newspapers are going to have to work harder to keep their full-page ads going for however many thousand pounds it is they sell for.
Thanks everyone, all very much appreciated!
My one was best.
Er, I beg to diff.
Alright then, it was.
thangyew
Post a Comment