Share This

Showing posts with label CNN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CNN. Show all posts

Friday, 25 February 2022

How US media, liberal or conservative, turn Beijing Winter Olympics into another feather in their anti-China campaign cap

 

#Beijing2022 Opening Ceremony! | Full Replay


The Media Center of the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympic Games Photo: VCG The Media Center of the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympic Games Photo: VCG

The Beijing Winter Olympics successfully closed on Sunday. The sports event, "truly exceptional" as International Olympic Committee President Thomas Bach described at Sunday's closing ceremony, showed the world not only the excellent performances of Olympians, but also how China overcame challenges to offer the participants high-quality facilities and services amid the global COVID-19 pandemic.
`
Nonetheless, observers said it's sad that many foreign audiences, who usually receive information from some biased Western media outlets, the US media in particular, hardly knew about the Beijing Winter Games in an authentic and objective way.
`
How did some influential American media outlets cover the Beijing Winter Olympics, when the US sees China as a strategic rival? The Global Times selected six US media outlets that represent different interest groups in the country, and collected and analyzed their recent coverage related to the Beijing Winter Games, trying to learn about the US media's strategy concerning the Games and the possible prejudice behind it.
`
The selected six media outlets were CNN, The New York Times (NYT), Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Fox News, National Public Radio (NPR), and USA Today.
`
`
Media's 'China agenda' of Beijing Olympics
`
By using online media monitoring tools, the Global Times reporters collected media coverage related to the Beijing Winter Games in February, particularly the week of February 14-21, focusing on coverage from CNN, NYT, WSJ, Fox News, NPR, and USA Today.
`
These six major media outlets presented a very mixed tone in their discourse of the closing ceremony of the Winter Games on Monday night.
`
In the titles of articles published by these US media outlets, most of the pieces included negative adjectives such as "rocky", "strange", "unwelcomed", "controversial", and "overshadowed by a doping scandal" in describing the Games, the Global Times reporters found. There were a lot references to alleged "human rights violations" and "excessively strict quarantine policies" in their review, though some articles provided a relatively objective picture of the well-designed and touching details of the closing ceremony.
`
The sour grapes mentality exhibited by US media is on full display in these articles. NPR, for instance, even preposterously tagged the Games as "the most controversial, most unwelcoming Olympics of our lifetime" in an opinion piece by its staff.
`
https://money.yahoo.com/most-controversial-most-unwelcoming-olympics-150319010.html
`
US politics and media observers tend to classify CNN and NYT as the liberal media (or "left-wing"), WSJ and Fox as conservative media (or "right-wing"), while NPR and USA Today as relatively moderate media (or "center"). American media outlets with different editorial objectives speak for different groups in the US, while they usually stand together against other countries for US national interests.
`
Looking back the past week, CNN, a typical "left-wing" media outlet known for its mostly liberal views, published some 73 articles covering the Beijing Winter Games from February 14 to 21. Fourteen of the articles were related to China or Chinese athletes, found he Global Times.
`
Among the 14 articles, four were positive overall, covering the performances of Chinese gold medalists such as figure skaters Sui Wenjing and Han Cong.
`
Three of the 14 articles were written in negative tones, which made far-fetched links between the sporting event and China's relationship with other countries. In a February 19 article reporting on a "doping scandal" about Russian skater Kamila Valieva, CNN frequently mentioned Ukraine's "border tension" and the "close ties" between China and Russia.
`
The NYT is another mainstream media publication popular among US liberalists. The Global Times found that between February 14 and 21, it produced about 211 pieces covering the Beijing Winter Games, 30 pieces of which are related to China and Chinese athletes.
`
The NYT reported on the Games with much broader views than CNN did. Among the 30 pieces, 12 were positive overall and covered not only Chinese gold medalists, but also the various cuisines provided at the Olympic Village, and China's speed trains near the Village.
`
However, in its six pieces written in a negative tone, the NYT seemed to make bigger efforts in smearing China with strange, baseless accusations. In a February 19 article reporting on a "doping scandal" about Russian skater Kamila Valieva, CNN frequently mentioned Ukraine's "border tension" and the "close ties" between China and Russia, trying to hint at China being behind the Ukrainian crisis. That was neither true nor related to the Beijing Winter Olympics in the slightest, noted Chinese international relations and media experts.
`
The WSJ, a center-right US-based media publication, published 28 reports on the Beijing Winter Olympics between February 14 and February 21, 13 pieces of which are related to China and Chinese athletes.
`
Only two of the reports were relatively positive, focusing on Gu and China's record-breaking gold medal haul.
`
Five had negative tones, involving claims of China's "data surveillance of athletes" and "dismal ratings for the Winter Olympics" that were patently untrue or have been repeatedly refuted.
`
FOX, a typical right-wing media outlet in the US, ran about 143 stories between February 14 and February 21, 31 of which were closely related to Chinese athletes or China.
`
FOX reported on international athletes' positive comments about the Winter Olympics, including praise for the quality of the ice rink in Beijing's Olympic Village, the efficient closed-loop quarantine measures, the popular Chinese food in the Village, high-tech elements, and stories of Chinese athletes' valiant efforts.
`
Gu Ailing of Team China competes in the women's freestyle skiing halfpipe event on February 18. Gu became one of the favorite topics of American media outlets about the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympic Games.

      Photo: Cui Meng/GT
`
Gu Ailing of Team China competes in the women's freestyle skiing halfpipe event on February 18. Gu became one of the favorite topics of American media outlets about the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympic Games. Photo: Cui Meng/GT
`
However, some of the articles forcefully conflated the Games with unrelated political issues such as the situation in the island of Taiwan and alleged "human rights concerns" in Xinjiang, despite repeated calls from mainstream international voices to avoid politicizing the Games.
`
In a piece titled "Beijing Olympics get political with Taiwan, Uyghur questions", FOX repeatedly peppered the piece with political issues, and hyped the question "if IOC uniforms and other IOC garments were produced by Uygur labor - or from Xinjiang cotton."
`
Being regarded as a centrist media outlet by many, NPR published some 72 articles on the Beijing Olympics between February 14 and 21, and 10 of the articles were related to the host country China, and Chinese athletes.
`
Of the 10 articles, only one was relatively positive, narrating the positive impact that Gu has had on more young girls participating in winter sports.
`
The rest of the articles, while trying to maintain a relatively objective stance, included two direct attacks on China for "politicizing the Olympics" and "deplorable" restrictions imposed by the country's quarantine policies.
`
USA TODAY, another US media among centrists, ran 105 stories about the Beijing Olympics from February 14 to 21, of which 10 were directly related to Chinese athletes or the organizers.
`
Three of the articles were the relatively neutral coverage of the performance of Chinese athletes on the field. One article on February 18, however, was written in a biased and negative tone, intentionally quoting an individual athlete as saying the Beijing Olympics "terrible,", the Global Times found.
`
Correspondents and their predetermined perspectives
`
Many influential US media outlets sent correspondents to cover the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics. At least 10 corresponds appear to be Chinese Americans or come from an Asian background.
`
Looking into their stories, however, most of the correspondents acted not as bridges linking Chinese and American audience, but as barriers that deepened misunderstandings between the two.
`
Amy Qin of the NYT, for instance, is a name familiar to many Chinese readers. This Asia-based correspondent regularly covers Chinese politics and society, and many of her stories have, in the past, sparked controversy laced with bias and misinformation, such a COVID-19 origins tracing piece that was published in June 2021.
`
Qin wrote at least 12 stories during the Beijing Olympics, reporting from the opening ceremony and Chinese athletes, to China's dynamic zero-COVID policy and winter sports popularity, as shown by the NYT website. In a February 19 article covering the skiing development in Northwest China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, she blatantly mentioned the "genocide" rumor at the end, eclipsing any bright spots regarding skiing development in the region that may have been mentioned in her article.
`
With a cross-cultural background herself, Qin seems particularly interested in American-born athletes of Chinese descents, and what the current China-US "rivalry" has done to the group. On February 16, she wrote that Nathan Chen, a Chinese American figure skater who won gold at the Olympics, was "ignored" by the Chinese public in a seeming attempt to criticize the so-called "resurgent nationalism" among "[Chinese] citizens."
`
US correspondents in China have been a window for Americans to know more about the country. Unfortunately, "most [US correspondents in China] are actually tools to play up the negative image of China that caters to the American elites," Li Haidong, a professor from the Institute of International Relations of the China Foreign Affairs University, told the Global Times.
`
Nonetheless, in the era of the great boom of social media, these correspondents and the US mainstream media, can no longer dominate China-related discourse, as social media have increasingly become a popular way for people to follow Olympic-related topics, which indeed poses a challenge to the monopoly of traditional mainstream media in depicting China, Li said.
`
Despite the widespread "political boycott" against the Games played up by the US mainstream media, Americans are not fooled and many still genuinely enjoyed watching the Games across numerous social media platforms and shared what they are fond of or the Games' most captivating moments. That's a reality, but also a story that never gets told, Vipinder Jaswal, founder of the US-based PR company Vippi Media, told the Global Times in a previous interview.
`
Jaswal said that the mainstream media and politicians coming against the Games have the greatest function to negatively influence people and disseminate some type of propaganda, but people were largely not fooled.
`
Narration full of bias and lies
`
The collected data showed that in general, positive coverage of US media mostly focused on relatively light topics in specific sports or social areas, including Chinese athletes winning medals, and international athletes enjoying delicious meals at the Olympic Village.
`
Many of its negative coverage, ridiculously, had little to do with the Games. These articles were usually related to politics and economy, and clichés that alluded to "problems" in China that actually don't exist, such the "Xinjiang forced labor" accusation. Regardless of the fact that much of the fake news has been clarified by Chinese government, US media rehashed them, lashing them to the Winter Olympics for eye-grabbing sensationalism.
`
Discourse on the Games in the mainstream US media, whether liberal or conservative, has yet to get rid of the "gloom filter" that was projected in their typical coverage full of prejudice against China's development, observers said Although American media outlets with different editorial objectives speak for different groups in the US, they usually stand together against China for US national interests, they noted
`
They are still trying to use the US political elitist narrative of human rights standards as a weapon to attack the Games, Li told the Global Times.This ideology-oriented reporting approach inevitably leads to bias in the US media's reporting on China, and it ends up further away from the "independence" and "transparency" advocated by Western news ethics, said Li.

Source link

 

RELATED ARTICLES
 

 Related posts:

 

   ` Full Closing Ceremony | #Beijing2022   Live From Beijing 2022: Beijing 2022 closing ceremony takes place at ‘Bird’s Nest’ The Beijing .. 
 
` ` China: Rise of an Asian giant | Insight | Full Episode China’s space station: From no flush toilets to building its ow...
 
Gu Ailing Eileen wins gold Eighteen-year-old Gu is a cross-cultural legend for both China and the US        China is multifaceted, but what’...
 
 *"Gravitas"*  Recently there were quite a few videos coming out from an Indian Internet TV channel going by the program name of *.

Monday, 5 April 2021

Smear campaign serving

The US has found the world order quickly shifting and is feeling uneasy with the challenge from China.

Beautiful diversity: Today, there are 25 million Muslims living in China. Here, Muslim devotees are praying at the Nanxiapo Mosque in Beijing to celebrate Hari Raya Aidilfitri. — The Star



 
 THE legend of Admiral Zheng He (more commonly known as Cheng Ho to most Malaysians) has always fascinated me, being a history student with Peranakan roots in Penang.


In fact, I took the opportunity to travel to Nanjing, China, to pay respects to the great man at his tombstone.

The only snag was, Zheng He’s resting place remains a mystery, he who led historic voyages to South-East Asia and eastern Africa.

His remains have never been found, leading many to believe he received his final rites at sea during his last voyage, sometime in 1433.

But Zheng He is not a Uighur (pronounced as wee ger). He was from the Hui ethnic group, which comprises Muslims.

The history of Islam in China goes back more than a staggering 1,300 years.

While Zheng He is probably one of the most famous Muslims, there were others during the Ming rule, Muslim military generals including Mu Ying, Hu Dahai, Lan Yu, Feng Sheng and Ding Dexing.

There was also the famous Confucian Muslim scholar, Ma Zhu, who served during the Ming dynasty. The name Ma is the Chinese counterpart to Muhammad.

Today, there are 25 million Muslims living in China. The Hui is the largest group (48%), followed by the Uighur (41%), and together, they make up about 90% of the total Muslim population. The other Muslims include Kazakh (6,1%) and Dongxiang (2.5%), followed by the Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Salar, Tajik, Bonan and Tatar groups. They live mostly in Xinjiang, Gansu, Qinghai and Yunnan, and even in Beijing and Xian.

My trips to China have taken me to Xinjiang by air, road and train, where I spent weeks meeting these beautiful ethnic minorities.

I travelled on the Silk Road and tried imagining how ancient traders treaded the same path. Famed Italian merchant, Marco Polo, probably used the same route in the 13th Century to look for spices, silk and carpets.

My journey took me across the Taklamakan desert on long overnight trains to Turpan (or the Flaming Mountains), the setting of the famous Chinese novel Journey to the West, of the Monkey God fame.

The trip concluded in Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in the far northwest of China.

Urumqi was a major hub on the Silk Road during the Tang Dynasty’s golden age, and today, it has one of the world’s largest bazaars.

Walking through the markets reminded me of the souq in the Middle East, being surrounded by the blue-eyed Uighur and their distinct Turkish looks, while blonde Russians, all speaking Mandarin, were among the other Chinese. It was an exotic place, indeed.

As a “banana” (a term describing a Western-educated Chinese with Western world views, and can’t speak Mandarin), I was lucky to have scholars from Universiti Malaya explain the historical and academic aspects of China.

I have also travelled to Xian, where China’s ancient capital, Chang’an, is located. It was home to more than 10 dynasties.

It was a delight for me to step into the mosques and immerse in local Muslim culture. Islam has long been part of Xian history, where the terracotta soldiers stand guard.

But today, Xinjiang is in the international news for all the wrong reasons. Damaging words, including genocide, have been hurled at it. The grim and gruesome word means killing many people from an ethnic group with the aim of wiping it out.

There is little evidence, if none at all, to prove genocide, but it’s such a strong emotive word that it recalls the Holocaust and Khmer Rouge killing fields in Cambodia.

The Xinjiang cotton fields are alleged to have practised forced labour, even though it’s common knowledge that machines are required for large scale productions. There have also been accusations of rape.

Nothing is spared in the mind games between the two superpowers (US and China) to discredit each other.

Reports on the issue have come thick and fast from CNN and BBC, almost on a daily basis, in fact.

It’s hard to ignore that since the protests in Hong Kong began, they have become more involved in instigative journalism than investigative journalism.

Since the racist campaign by Donald Trump, where China was blamed for the spread of the coronavirus, Americans and many ill-informed Westerners have looked at ethnic Asians – especially those with Chinese features – negatively.

They have lumped all Orientals together as Chinese, just like how some think turbaned Sikhs with beards must be Taliban.

Now, under the Biden Administration, there is little difference, except perhaps Joe is less antagonistic, though the anti-China sentiments remain.

From the coronavirus to Huawei, and Tik Tok through to purported spy scholars and the South China Sea, and now Xinjiang cotton, it has become a concerted campaign.

We all know the US has little love for Muslims anywhere in the world.

The US has dropped enough bombs in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, as well as imposed sanctions against Iran, to substantiate that claim. The US has also turned a blind eye to the plight of the Palestinians.

These assaults were launched on the pretext of destroying weapons of mass destruction owned by the Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi regimes, though we now know fact from fiction.

While the two weren’t angels (but more dictators), the fanatical Islamic State took over after the two were deposed and worsened the situation.

Now, the attention is China. It’s the perfect villain – communist rule, no elections and a campaign against Muslims in Xinjiang.

Most Americans can neither pronounce Xinjiang nor point it out on a map, although that seems a moot point to them.

The truth is, the US is jittery because its dominance is over. The world order has changed.

While the US was busy executing its campaign in the name of upholding human rights and western values, and burning trillions of dollars on arsenal, the Chinese spent the last decades building their nation and eradicating poverty.

No one should be surprised when China overtakes the US in the world economy. It didn’t happen overnight, though.

Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen and Guangzhou may not be representative of the whole of China, especially compared to third-tier cities and rural areas, but credit where it’s due for the absence of homeless colonies in the cities.

As a Malaysian who has regularly visited China, I feel poor whenever I’m there. The glitzy skyscrapers, efficient transport system, low crime rate, affluence and orderly city administration has shown that China has certainly arrived.

The Chinese have become visibly wealthier and sophisticated, and while their tendency to flaunt their wealth rubs many the wrong way, they have simply become what the early rich Americans used to be. The rich Chinese are loud and brash, but along the way, they – just like the Americans did then – will change.

Rather than demonise China and its people, the US could do well with promoting its values, many of which are universal in nature, such as the rule of law, protecting individual rights, improving living standards and driving the engine of innovation.

The US remains the preferred destination for most people seeking migration.

The immigrants, including Muslims who refused to integrate, could have chosen Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar, Kuwait or Senegal, but they picked the US.

We embrace American culture and its lifestyle, especially Hollywood movies, Disneyland, burgers, Coca- Cola and music. That speaks volumes of how most of us admire the US.

While the Chinese are now at a stage where they are content with growth and material wealth, they will eventually question issues like environment, inequality and self-suffrage, when they find themselves without a safety net.

The expansion of the middle class has always been similar all over the world. When the stomach and pockets are full, people have time to talk about democratic ideals.

But for now, the chaos and destruction in Hong Kong and racism in the US have given reason for China, and Chinese all over the world, to push back, or even detest the aggressive campaign by the US. This is nothing more than blatant bullying.

It isn’t fair play, unlike what the US claims, because there’s clearly a lack of respect for competition.

We all believe “democracy is the worst system of government, except for everything else, ” as Winston Churchill said. It’s loud and messy, as we know, but power is more diffused in democracy, where it’s equally shared through the population, as James Stavridis, a retired US Navy admiral put it.

The Xinjiang campaign will come back to haunt the US. Unlike other Muslims in China, the Uighur have indulged in ISIS activities, including being actively involved in Syria, where many combatants are members of an Al Qaeda offshoot.

Reuters and Associated Press have reported of at least 5,000 Uighur in ISIS operating in Syria and Iraq.

Many of them from the outlawed Turkistan Islamic Party, are pushing for an Islamic state in Xinjiang, which China surely won’t tolerate.

That perhaps explains why China takes a different approach to the Uighur compared to other Muslims, though these actions remain open to debate.

But here’s the irony – while the US and its western allies are busy drumming up the issue, the powerful Muslim countries led by Saudi Arabia, along with 36 other countries, have defended China’s policies in Xinjiang in a letter released in 2019.

The world is not keen on getting entangled in an escalating trade war between the US and China.

We want both countries to work together, if they really believe and practise what they preach to the rest of us, the minion nations. And if they do, the world stands to benefit immeasurably.

 Wong Chun Wai

Wong  Chun Wai Wong Chun Wai began his career as a journalist in Penang, and has served The Star for over 35 years in various capacities and roles. He is now group editorial and corporate affairs adviser to the group, after having served as group managing director/chief executive officer. On The Beat made its debut on Feb 23 1997 and Chun Wai has penned the column weekly without a break, except for the occasional press holiday when the paper was not published. In May 2011, a compilation of selected articles of On The Beat was published as a book and launched in conjunction with his 50th birthday. Chun Wai also comments on current issues in The Star.

Source link

 

Related:

 

BBC's Beijing correspondent John Sudworth left the Chinese mainland without notifying Chinese officials or fulfilling any departure-procedures required of a foreign resident journalist in China. He has "fled" to Taiwan and made himself the center of a breaking news. Some people in Xinjiang plan to seek legal redress against him and sue him for spreading misinformation.

 

Related posts:

 

Winners, losers in Xinjiang cotton row

Not many will gain in the current furore over Xinjiang cotton, but the West may end up losing more.

 

. . . . Anger brews in China over brands boycotting Xinjiang cotton, linking it to claims of forced labour....
 
 
  People march in downtown Montreal, Canada during a demonstration against anti-Asian racism on March 21, 2021 ..
 
 
Chinese diplomats state China's position in the opening remarks of the China-US high-level strategic dialogue in Anchorage, Alaska, on T...

Wednesday, 23 May 2012

The Facebook Fallacy

For all its valuation, the social network is just another ad-supported site. Without an earth-changing idea, it will collapse and take down the Web.



Facebook is not only on course to go bust, but will take the rest of the ad-supported Web with it.

Given its vast cash reserves and the glacial pace of business reckonings, that will sound hyperbolic. But that doesn't mean it isn't true.

At the heart of the Internet business is one of the great business fallacies of our time: that the Web, with all its targeting abilities, can be a more efficient, and hence more profitable, advertising medium than traditional media. Facebook, with its 900 million users, valuation of around $100 billion, and the bulk of its business in traditional display advertising, is now at the heart of the heart of the fallacy.

The daily and stubborn reality for everybody building businesses on the strength of Web advertising is that the value of digital ads decreases every quarter, a consequence of their simultaneous ineffectiveness and efficiency. The nature of people's behavior on the Web and of how they interact with advertising, as well as the character of those ads themselves and their inability to command real attention, has meant a marked decline in advertising's impact.

At the same time, network technology allows advertisers to more precisely locate and assemble audiences outside of branded channels. Instead of having to go to CNN for your audience, a generic CNN-like audience can be assembled outside CNN's walls and without the CNN-brand markup. This has resulted in the now famous and cruelly accurate formulation that $10 of offline advertising becomes $1 online.

I don't know anyone in the ad-Web business who isn't engaged in a relentless, demoralizing, no-exit operation to realign costs with falling per-user revenues, or who isn't manically inflating traffic to compensate for ever-lower per-user value.

Facebook, however, has convinced large numbers of otherwise intelligent people that the magic of the medium will reinvent advertising in a heretofore unimaginably profitable way, or that the company will create something new that isn't advertising, which will produce even more wonderful profits. But at a forward profit-to-earnings ratio of 56 (as of the close of trading on May 21), these innovations will have to be something like alchemy to make the company worth its sticker price. For comparison, Google trades at a forward P/E ratio of 12. (To gauge how much faith investors have that Google, Facebook, and other Web companies will extract value from their users, see our recent chart.)

Facebook currently derives 82 percent of its revenue from advertising. Most of that is the desultory ticky-tacky kind that litters the right side of people's Facebook profiles. Some is the kind of sponsorship that promises users further social relationships with companies: a kind of marketing that General Motors just announced it would no longer buy.

Facebook's answer to its critics is: pay no attention to the carping. Sure, grunt-like advertising produces the overwhelming portion of our $4 billion in revenues; and, yes, on a per-user basis, these revenues are in pretty constant decline, but this stuff is really not what we have in mind. Just wait.

It's quite a juxtaposition of realities. On the one hand, Facebook is mired in the same relentless downward pressure of falling per-user revenues as the rest of Web-based media. The company makes a pitiful and shrinking $5 per customer per year, which puts it somewhat ahead of the Huffington Post and somewhat behind the New York Times' digital business. (Here's the heartbreaking truth about the difference between new media and old: even in the New York Times' declining traditional business, a subscriber is still worth more than $1,000 a year.) Facebook's business only grows on the unsustainable basis that it can add new customers at a faster rate than the value of individual customers declines. It is peddling as fast as it can. And the present scenario gets much worse as its users increasingly interact with the social service on mobile devices, because it is vastly harder, on a small screen, to sell ads and profitably monetize users.

On the other hand, Facebook is, everyone has come to agree, profoundly different from the Web. First of all, it exerts a new level of hegemonic control over users' experiences. And it has its vast scale: 900 million, soon a billion, eventually two billion (one of the problems with the logic of constant growth at this scale and speed, of course, is that eventually it runs out of humans with computers or smart phones). And then it is social. Facebook has, in some yet-to-be-defined way, redefined something. Relationships? Media? Communications? Communities? Something big, anyway.

The subtext—an overt subtext—of the popular account of Facebook is that the network has a proprietary claim and special insight into social behavior. For enterprises and advertising agencies, it is therefore the bridge to new modes of human connection.

Expressed so baldly, this account is hardly different from what was claimed for the most aggressively boosted companies during the dot-com boom. But there is, in fact, one company that created and harnessed a transformation in behavior and business: Google. Facebook could be, or in many people's eyes should be, something similar. Lost in such analysis is the failure to describe the application that will drive revenues.

Google is an incredibly efficient system for placing ads. In a disintermediated advertising market, the company has turned itself into the last and ultimate middleman. On its own site, it controls the space where a buyer searches for a thing and where a seller hawks that thing (its keywords AdWords network). Google is also the cheapest, most efficient way to place ads anywhere on the Web (the AdSense network). It's not a media company in any traditional sense; it's a facilitator. It can forget the whole laborious, numbing process of selling advertising space: if a marketer wants to place an ad (that is, if it is already convinced it must advertise), the company calls Mr. Google.

And that's Facebook's hope, too: like Google, it wants to be a facilitator, the inevitable conduit at the center of the world's commerce.

Facebook has the scale, the platform, and the brand to be the new Google. It only lacks the big idea. Right now, it doesn't actually know how to embed its usefulness into world commerce (or even, really, what its usefulness is).

But Google didn't have the big idea at the company's founding, either. The search engine borrowed the concept of AdWords from Yahoo's Overture network (with a lawsuit for patent infringement and settlement following). Now Google has all the money in the world to buy or license all the ideas that could makes its scale, platform, and brand pay off.

What might Facebook's big idea look like? Well, it does have all this data. The company knows so much about so many people that its executives are sure that the knowledge must have value (see "You Are the Ad," by Robert D. Hof, May/June 2011).

If you're inside the Facebook galaxy (a constellation that includes an ever-expanding cloud of associated ventures) there is endless chatter about a near-utopian (but often quasi-legal or demi-ethical) new medium of marketing. "If we just ... if only ... when we will ..." goes the conversation. If, for instance, frequent-flyer programs and travel destinations actually knew when you were thinking about planning a trip. Really we know what people are thinking about—sometimes before they know! If a marketer could identify the person who has the most influence on you ... If a marketer could introduce you to someone who would relay the marketer's message ... get it? No ads, just friends! My God!

But so far, the sweeping, basic, transformative, and simple way to connect buyer to seller and then get out of the way eludes Facebook.

So the social network is left in the same position as all other media companies. Instead of being inevitable and unavoidable, it has to sell the one-off virtue of its audience like every other humper on Madison Avenue.

Here's another worrisome point: Facebook is a company of technologists, not marketers. If you wanted to bet on someone succeeding in the marketing business, you'd bet on technologists only if they could invent some new way to sell; you wouldn't bet on them to sell the way marketers have always sold.

But that's what Facebook is doing, selling individual ads. From a revenue perspective, it's an ad-sales business, not a technology company. To meet expectations—the expectations that took it public at $100 billion, the ever-more-vigilant expectations needed to sustain it at that price—it has to sell at near hyperspeed.

The growth of its user base and its ever-expanding  page views means an almost infinite inventory to sell. But the expanding supply, together with an equivocal demand, means ever-lowering costs. The math is sickeningly inevitable. Absent an earth-shaking idea, Facebook will look forward to slowing or declining growth in a tapped-out market, and ever-falling ad rates, both on the Web and (especially) in mobile. Facebook isn't Google; it's Yahoo or AOL.

Oh, yes ... In its Herculean efforts to maintain its overall growth, Facebook will continue to lower its per-user revenues, which, given its vast inventory, will force the rest of the ad-driven Web to lower its costs. The low-level panic the owners of every mass-traffic website feel about the ever-downward movement of the cost of a thousand ad impressions (or CPM) is turning to dread, as some big sites observed as much as a 25 percent decrease in the last quarter, following Facebook's own attempt to book more revenue.

You see where this is going. As Facebook gluts an already glutted market, the fallacy of the Web as a profitable ad medium can no longer be overlooked. The crash will come. And Facebook—that putative transformer of worlds, which is, in reality, only an ad-driven site—will fall with everybody else.

By Michael Wolff
Michael Wolff writes a column on media for the Guardian; is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair; founded Newser; and was, until October of last year, the editor of AdWeek
Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Related posts:
May 28, 2012
May 20, 2012

Tuesday, 17 April 2012

Asia from an Asian perspective

Singapore’s Channel News Asia plans to penetrate the US and European pay TV markets, but faces challenges posed by surging social media.

SINGAPORE television, which helped Lee Kuan Yew defeat his left-wing foes and stay in power for 50 years, plans to go worldwide 24 hours a day from next year.

The global push by the state-owned Channel News Asia (CNA) to extend its reach from Asia to cover the United States and Europe is an ambitious project, given the adverse cable news market.

Last week, America’s CNN (Cable News Network), despite its vast resources and experience, reported a ratings drop of up to 50% in the first quarter.

All three global networks suffered declines, having lost audiences to the new digital media.

The declines are not deterring CNA, whose predecessor had played a historic role in the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) elimination of the powerful left-wing Barisan Sosialis in the 60s.

Despite its near-monopoly, circulation of Singapore’s main Straits Times broadsheet has stagnated.

“For us to be a true global player in the news channel space we need to broadcast 24 hours, every hour on the hour, with live news,” said a CNA spokesman.

“This will eventually allow us to penetrate the US and European pay TV markets, so that people there can get Asian news with Asian perspectives whenever they want.”

Having their state TV moving into the world arena has raised a little sense of pride among some Singaporeans.

Informed citizens, however, are questioning its chances of success considering that it is considered to be a government mouthpiece. And taxpayers are worried about footing the bill for potential losses.

A small-time businessman commented: “I wish it well, but if powerful global networks like CNN are losing out, what chance has the state-owned Singapore TV to succeed?”

Not everyone agrees. A polytechnic lecturer said Singapore has become an economic international player and a provider of jobs for professionals.

So TV has a small part, but, he added, if it is thinking of taking on the big players in providing global news, “I would say forget it”.

The vast majority of Americans and Europeans don’t really care for Singapore’s idea of “Asian coverage of Asian news”.

The biggest handicap is its ties to the government.

Most people I talked to doubted if many Westerners would be well disposed to news from a government news channel (BBC is different because of its long history of objective reporting).

Even among Singaporeans, one in every two believes that the Singapore media is biased, according to a survey last year.

On average, in a normal day, however, newspapers and television are the top sources of news here, with the Internet coming in a close third.

But in last year’s election, some 48% turned to Yahoo! for quick news, with CNA in second place at 23.8%. Newspapers, however, were the people’s main source of news.

Television was launched in 1963, the year Singapore joined Malaysia, and when it left two years later, the telecast of Lee Kuan Yew weeping caught the imagination of the world.

At the launch, only 2,400 Singaporean homes had TV sets, but tens of thousands of people, young and old, would sit on wooden benches in community centres to watch the magic box.

As a 23-year old then, I joined enthusiastic friends to meet outside a department store TV display window and watched celluloid scenes of the PAP developing Jurong or building public flats at a rate of one unit every 45 minutes.

It was a powerful message for a poor squatter country.

Eventually the leftwing hold among the vast Chinese-educated was broken. To the viewers, moving pictures could not lie.

The hard-working Barisan Sosialis representatives resorted to knocking on doors to get to the people, but they could not match the power of moving pictures.

Since then, the government has kept 100% ownership of television. Despite much talk of going public, TV news remain in official hands. About half of Singaporeans polled last year felt that “there is too much government control of newspapers and television”, according to an analysis by the Institute of Policy Studies.

With 3.37 million Internet users out of a 5.18 million population, the expectation is that while mainstream newspapers and TV remain on top of the pole for news, erosion among young readers is likely to continue.

This is because CNA is widely perceived as the voice of the government. An advisory committee said in 2009 that this factor could hamper its credibility as a news conduit.

The circulation of the Straits Times has been dismal over the decades despite a big population jump.
Not exactly good news for the ruling PAP.

An authoritative source once told me that for the PAP to remain in power, it must have control over three things – security forces, finance and the media.

The first two remain more or less in place, but control of the third – the media – is being challenged by the day by the surging social media where every citizen can be both a reporter and a reader.

INSIGHT DOWN SOUTH By SEAH CHIANG NEE

Related post

Foreign worker flow choked in Singapore