Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector- This is about a very very small conspiracy. The spin doctoring that occurs around South African Rugby.
But change the names, place in America , change supersport to American media and Rugby to US government, then it’s the same story.
One difference is that in rugby it is about money and the game, in American politics there are more than one set of actors, and some are in it to protect their tribe, some to promote illumination and some for religion then you have more interesting and bizarre story….and there is really big money involved
How to seduce a journalist
http://www.bday.co.za/bday/content/direct/1,3523,1657765-6078-0,00.html
MARK Keohane's book, Springbok Rugby Uncensored, is meant to be about the game, but much of it is about the media world. It contains a devastating account of how compromised and complacent a lot of the South African media are both institutions and individual journalists.
Keohane has provided a rare view from the desk of the spin doctor. He takes the lid off contemporary journalism and its shortcomings and this makes it a fascinating read for journalists and media watchers.
He describes journalists (with just a few exceptions) as a lazy, illinformed lot, and tells how many were quite happy to print his media releases with their name on top. But with others, rugby officials used a mixture of manipulation, threats and huge commercial clout to soften criticism of themselves and their teams. With some magazines, a phonecall would stifle dissent.
This is no great surprise. What his book reveals, however, is the extent to which what is broadcast or printed is diluted due to the complex business relationships between rugby and the media.
"Unfortunately for the rugby supporter in SA, there is no such thing as a free and independent media." He singles out pay television channel SuperSport as so caught up in its business relationships with SA Rugby that it is happy and willing to suppress criticism. "The subscription broadcaster owns rugby as much as rugby owns the broadcaster," he says, and describes their relationship as a "love affair".
Supersport, he says, is the most powerful medium in a world in which media are increasingly important to the game, "yet they are caught between two worlds: calling the game and selling the game".
They cannot tell the viewer too often that South African rugby is a circus, as it will have a direct effect on their product.
"They have to lure the viewer to the game; rugby is their biggest investment that is why criticism of Bok rugby is so mild on SuperSport."
He describes how he prepared questions for SuperSport's Naas Botha to ask Bok coach Rudolf Straeuli, and how Straeuli was briefed on what to expect. He would sit with channel producers and choose footage they would use to reinforce his message.
Next time you watch the coverage, keep in mind Keohane's cold warning: "Don't ever forget that SuperSport is in partnership with SA Rugby."
The English-language press comes out only slightly better in Keohane's book. In general, they were harder to buy, and there were always journalists and editors who would stand firm on their principles, but SA Rugby targeted the Independent Newspaper Group as the most important printed media and "succeeded in bringing them to the bash".
Advertising won the group around, he writes. "SA Rugby knew they could not buy the editorial independence of the English press, but by building a relationship through advertising, the mood certainly swayed towards the positive in most of the Independent publications."
Keohane admires the Afrikaans Sunday paper Rapport for the quality and depth of its rugby coverage, though much of what it reported was at first a problem for him and the team.
It took a combination of cajoling, seduction (with exclusive information) and threats, but over time "they were nicely tucked away", he says, his phraseology telling us how easy and casual it all was.
Keohane has praise for some, notably Andy Colquhoun (the best, he says), Louis de Villiers (Rapport) and Clinton van der Berg (Sunday Times) for being "perceptive, fair and forthright". But even the outspoken such as John Robbie of Radio 702 or Dan Retief became soft- spoken on SuperSport, he says.
Others are compromised by their own personal interests, such as Botha, who has interests in rugby academies linked to SA Rugby and was a manager of the national U21 side; or Joel Stransky, who is a director of Megapro, SA Rugby's commercial agents.
One has to wonder how these commentators can continue without declaring their interests.
What Keohane describes is not just a few individuals who are compromised. It is an industry that confuses marketing with journalism. He concludes: "SA Rugby controlled the South African rugby media." What is most startling is how easy it is.
Many might feel his account is self-serving. It certainly is. But it also gives a stark account of the state of our profession and industry that is most worrying.
Harber is Caxton professor of journalism and media studies, Wits University.
Jul 13 2004 08:10:22:000AM Business Day 2nd Edition
NOTICE: Please note that this eMail, and the contents thereof, is subject to the standard Sasol eMail disclaimer which may be found at: http://www.sasol.com/disclaimer
If you cannot access the disclaimer through the URL attached and you wish to receive a copy thereof please send an eMail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This email was scanned and cleared by NetIQ MailMarshal.
www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- End Message ---
