…check back later.
Month: January 2005
The power of Flickr
A guy takes a photo of a photographer taking a photo. Guy posts photo of photographer on Flickr. A friend of the photographer finds the photo and the photographer then joins Flickr and posts the photo she took while being photographed. Phew… You’d better read the story at FlickrBlog instead. It’s quite amazing.
NY Times Link Generator
New York Times Link Generator: Creating weblog-safe links to NY Times articles.
J’accuse!
Hardly anyone reading PR blogs could have escaped last week’s hoopla about Jay Rosen’s attack on PR bloggers accusing PR bloggers of ignoring the Armstrong Williams-Ketchum affair. For those of you who missed the whole thing, I list some links at the bottom of this post.
Now it seems that yet another journalist got paid to promote an initiative from the Bush administration. Maggie Gallagher had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president’s initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families. But she failed to disclose it. In her syndicated column she dismissed the arguments against “President Bush’s modest marriage initiative” as “nonsense”.
“Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it?” Gallagher said yesterday. “I don’t know. You tell me.” She said she would have “been happy to tell anyone who called me” about the contract but that “frankly, it never occurred to me” to disclose it.
Duh, yes, that would be pretty obviuos.
Later in the day, Gallagher filed a column in which she said that “I should have disclosed a government contract when I later wrote about the Bush marriage initiative. I would have, if I had remembered it. My apologies to my readers.”
It never occured to her, and she didn’t remember. How lame is that?
Considering Jay Rosen’s response, it is important for both PR professionals and journalists to clearly state that the practice of payola is not acceptable.
Footnote: Links about the Armstrong Williams debacle:
Jan 7: USA Today reveals that PR agency Ketchum paid Armstrong Williams $240,000 to promote the No Child Left Behind initiative.
Jan 7: Richard Edelman responds.
Jan 9: Jeremy Pepper responds.
Jan 11: Half-hearted response from PRSA.
Jan 14: Shel Holz comments.
Jan 19: Jay Rosen blasts the PR blogosphere for not commenting enough about the incident. PR bloggers try (and succeed to some extent) to prove him wrong and that his research is shallow.
Jan 20: Lisa Stone at PressThink does a follow up.
Jan 20: NY Times (reg required) about Ketchum’s apology.
The aftermath:
Jan 21: Shel Holz again.
Jan 21: Elizabeth Albrycht
Things that should be RSS enabled in 2005
The new prime minister of Ukraine Viktor Yushenko has a blog-like personal site which is enabled with an RSS feed. (English version here, and RSS). Yet again we see that the former proud IT nation Sweden is beaten back to the stone age by less developed but more clever nations. Sigh.
OK Sweden, let’s pull our act together. Things that should be RSS enabled in 2005:
From the parliament/Riksdag:
* Minutes from debates in the parliament – It would increase the transparency and the interest from ordinary citizens in different political topics.
* Press releases
* Calendar of the parliament
From the Swedish National Labour Market Administration (AMV)
* Platsbanken – the web site with vacant jobs
Movies:
* SF.se – movie premieres based on my choice of location
E-commerce stuff:
* Tradera.com – RSS for different categories
* Hemnet.se – houses for sale based on my preferences
Businesses:
* Press rooms (like this one) [disclosure: this is my employer]
I’m sure I can think of a hundred more, but that’s about enough of free lunches.
Blogger made L’Oréal pull ad
Swedish blogger Sara thought that an ad from L’Oréal could be interpreted as being pedophile-like. She reported it to ERK (The Trade Council Against Sexist Advertising) and sent out a press release. A TV station commented on the story and it didn’t take long before L’Oréal had responded and promised not to use the ad again. The reason the photo looked like a man holding a child was that the breasts of the woman had been retouched (read removed). Well done Sarah and a swift and correct response from the advertiser.
Before and after retouching the photo:

