TV Week’s Internet Broadcasting section: a conflict?
Steve Safran August 3rd, 2006
This week’s edition of Television Week has a “SPECIAL REPORT” on the tenth anniversary of the Internet Broadcasting company (the former IBS). I agree that IB’s pioneering work is well worth discussing. My beef is not with IB here. TV Week chose to present the section in its magazine with big full color ads congratulating IB from clients, vendors, well-wishers, etc. So the section was long in the planning. Online, the section has nine articles, with softball headlines like “Leading Stations into the Web Era” and “Content (is the) Key to Web Sites.” The articles are fluff. There are no questions challenging IB’s business model. IB has competitors, but they are not mentioned by impartial comparison. Their market is changing, but the article only addresses that nebulously. Forget hard-hitting journalism - none of the reporters challenged any assumptions. Still, I could almost get by all of that and play the game. But labeling this a SPECIAL REPORT and not an advertorial? So, I’m opening this discussion to the floor: Did TV Week goof in how it presented the IB anniversary section?
23 Comments Add your own
1. Cory Bergman | August 3rd, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Industry mags often do flag-waving stories about broadcasters and syndicators — which drives lots of advertising because major clients feel compelled to buy “thank you” ads — so I’m not surprised. In a way, I’m glad an online organization is finally highlighted.
But still, it’s really over the top. You can’t pay for that kind of advertising.
2. Rex | August 4th, 2006 at 12:45 am
Oh boy. This is gonna be a fun thread to watch on Friday.
3. Eric | August 4th, 2006 at 2:24 am
Let us not forget that IBS sites are the ugliest lumps of code spewed out of TV news internet land.
4. Safran | August 4th, 2006 at 4:00 am
Please: let’s not turn this into an anti-IB thread. I’m not even making a point about IB. This is squarely a question about what TV Week - a journalistic effort - did under the heading of “SPECIAL REPORT.”
Here’s an analogy: if a local TV news organization did a 1/2 hour special report on a local business that was one long advertisement. Their sales people then went to that company’s clients and colleagues and told them of the opportunity to show their support. I have to believe Television Week would find that suspect journalistic behavior.
Again: this is NOT about IB. And Cory’s right - industry trades have done this before. It’s just that they’re doing this in our wheelhouse now, so I thought it was time the LR Faithful discussed it.
5. Ed | August 4th, 2006 at 5:39 am
Oh, man. Why do I get the feeling that if it has been anybody else, this website would be trumpeting, “finally, online gets its recognition.”
But, because it’s IBS, we get, “fluff”, “over the top”, “confict of interest”.
Never mind, as Cory said, these trade rags do this sort of thing all the time.
6. Rocker | August 4th, 2006 at 5:42 am
I’m not a journalist, I’m from the dark (business/general management) side. So I won’t speak to the journalistic implications of this common industry trade practice. However, as a reader, I hate these types of “features”….I’d love to read something that gave real insight into IBS, or many of the other topics these trades “cover” in this way throughout the year. But every time I read through one of these “features” I’m left with a “what a waste of time” feeling…so much so that I pretty much skip right past them now. If I’m not the only reader who does that, then it’s questionable what they’re really accomplishing with this approach…for the magazine itself, the subjects of the “features”, advertisers, or readers.
7. Safran | August 4th, 2006 at 6:01 am
Ed: I’m sorry you feel that way. In fact, when I got the mag and saw the cover promo, that was exactly my reaction. Then I read the section. And I would have felt exactly the same way if it had been about any internet company. “They do it all the time” is as good a reason as any to examine a practice. But if people want to see this as IB bashing, I suppose I can’t stop that.
8. thewashingtonchannel | August 4th, 2006 at 6:33 am
what’s with the charts at alexaholic and elsewhere of those ib stations that thought relaunching using their call letters was going to be a positive?
g-r-a-v-i-t-y?
pittsburgh, boston, milwaukee etc. don’t seem to be taking the slide.
what gives?
9. Rex | August 4th, 2006 at 8:34 am
Couldn’t you guys wait until my stock options mature before starting this thread?
I kid.
Here’s what I’ll say:
IB (I have a hard time typing that too) is ridiculously interesting as a company, with innumerable journalistic angles, which I’m surprised haven’t been picked up as a national trend piece. To wit: IB is at the center of the nexus for tv-internet convergence; IB is a humble midwestern company with an ungodly work ethic; IB is a postmodern amalgamation of disconnected mega-media companies (NBC, WaPo, Cox, Hearst, Telemundo, McGraw-Hill — a true Frankenstein!); IB is a paragon example of this strange world in which local news has global reach; IB is an invisible giant that quietly wins; IB is like many other companies in this space, trying to carve out an identity as a content player, a technology player, and a strategy player; IB is the largest media company in America that has nil brand identity; and IB is a distributed journalism machine quite unlike anything else out there.
Now, could the bundle of TV Week stories done a better job at getting at some of that complexity? Probably. Any of those angles would make an interesting story. Not to harsh on TV Week, but it’s not the place I would expect to see that kind of reportage. I think I would’ve been more surprised if I there actually *were* a trenchant story with those angles.
10. thedetroitchannel | August 4th, 2006 at 8:51 am
and not one person said congratulations either. so i will.
having lasted 10 years in the .com space says something.
11. Cory Bergman | August 4th, 2006 at 9:16 am
Again, this is not about IB. It’s about TVWeek. We’ve covered IB more than any other publication anywhere, and frankly, we’ve done a little flag-waving of our own. Because as an innovator in the space, they deserve it.
But to produce a big promotional spread principally to generate advertising dollars is messed up.
12. Larry | August 4th, 2006 at 9:27 am
To produce a big promotional spread principally to generate advertising dollars is messed up.
Unfortunately that’s become the business model at some (many? most?) print publications.
13. thedetroitchannel | August 4th, 2006 at 10:05 am
ooops.
in that regards tvweek will most likely do one for dayport, worldnow and others.
might as well cash out to the max if you’re gonna abandon your ethics.
14. Anonymous | August 4th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
ah hell steve…
you just haven’t been reading that publication and all its special reports because they do it ALL the ttime…and so does everyone else.
remember the new york times “special section” some months back with the huge “story” on abcnews.com which was a page or two ahead of the huge add taken out by abc?
and for that matter, what differentiates what you are bitching about from the ad for Safran Media (and consulting) that sits somewhere on the same page with all the blog items by same Safran on the state of internet operations.
do think about that, why doncha.
15. Steve Safran | August 4th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
Despite the name-calling in that posting, I will take your challenge. Here are the differences between the TV Week section and how I advertise my company on LR. I suspect LR readers will recognize they are substantial:
1. I do not blog about clients or offer quid-pro-quo. I recuse myself from stories involving clients.
2. We do not solicit ads from my clients or potential clients.
3. This is the biggie: I do not get paid for doing Lost Remote. I blog about this stuff because I love sharing the information and having the discussion with LRers.
We have always encouraged news directors, general managers and other company bosses to blog.
Bringing up a topic for discussion is not *bitching,* however. I love a good debate, but people are going to have to do better than *that is just how it is, so shut up* to convince me otherwise. For starters, a name would help…
16. Cory | August 5th, 2006 at 7:41 am
Well said, Safran.
17. aquamarine birthstone&hellip | December 16th, 2006 at 1:26 am
aquamarine birthstone…
Your post is on target. Keep it up….
18. drunk women passed out an&hellip | February 24th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
watching you masturbate…
madical pregency pics…
19. dr. schwarts ortho dontic&hellip | March 11th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
use zovirax…
soma what do they do…
20. sons penis size&hellip | May 11th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
cheap pharmacy viagra…
baby + erect penis…
21. eeniuegpyj | July 7th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! qostykaoro
22. meri | July 11th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Good+luck+with+your+site+in+the+future%21
23. MOJO | January 18th, 2008 at 6:34 am
Wow, thanks for the excellent information!
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed