@article{Murugesan07itpro, title = {Understanding Web 2.0}, author = {San Murugesan}, journal = {IT Professional}, number = 4, pages = {34-41}, volume = 9, year = 2007, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2007.78}, timestamp = {2008.02.19}, issn = {1520-9202}, file = {IEEE Digital Library:2007/Murugesan07itpro.pdf:PDF}, owner = {flint}, abstract = {Web 2.0, the second phase in the Web's evolution, is attracting the attention of IT professionals, businesses, and Web users. Web 2.0 is also called the wisdom Web, people-centric Web, participative Web, and read/write Web. Web 2.0 harnesses the Web in a more interactive and collaborative manner, emphasizing peers' social interaction and collective intelligence, and presents new opportunities for leveraging the Web and engaging its users more effectively. Within the last two to three years, Web 2.0, ignited by successful Web 2.0 based social applications such as MySpace, Flickr, and YouTube, has been forging new applications that were previously unimaginable.}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/29379b41b7746768aeadfa5ea28fac4f6/flint63}, keywords = {ieee newsfeeds blog application paper community bookmark wiki web software tagging v0805} } @article{AnkolekarKroetzschEtAl08jws, title = {The Two Cultures: Mashing up Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web}, author = {Anupriya Ankolekar and Markus Krötzsch and Thanh Tran and Denny Vrande{\v{c}}i{\'c}}, journal = {Web Semantics}, number = 1, pages = {70-75}, volume = 6, year = 2008, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2007.11.005}, timestamp = {2008.05.03}, issn = {1570-8268}, file = {ScienceDirect:2008/AnkolekarKroetzschEtAl08jws.pdf:PDF}, owner = {flint}, abstract = {A common perception is that there are two competing visions for the future evolution of the Web: the Semantic Web and Web 2.0. A closer look, though, reveals that the core technologies and concerns of these two approaches are complementary and that each field can and must draw from the other’s strengths. We believe that future Web applications will retain the Web 2.0 focus on community and usability, while drawing on Semantic Web infrastructure to facilitate mashup-like information sharing. However, there are several open issues that must be addressed before such applications can become commonplace. In this paper, we outline a semantic weblogs scenario that illustrates the potential for combining Web 2.0 and Semantic Web technologies, while highlighting the unresolved issues that impede its realization. Nevertheless, we believe that the scenario can be realized in the short-term. We point to recent progress made in resolving each of the issues as well as future research directions for each of the communities.}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2ed40207f9bcd0b34cb5dae63a02e3ced/flint63}, keywords = {blog ontology management data paper ai software knowledge v0805 community processing semantic web} } @inproceedings{conf/mc/LehelMS03, title = {Weblogs als ein innovatives Instrument des betrieblichen Wissensmanagements.}, author = {Vanda Lehel and Florian Matthes and Klaus Steinfatt}, booktitle = {Mensch & Computer}, crossref = {conf/mc/2003}, editor = {Gerd Szwillus and Jürgen Ziegler}, publisher = {Teubner}, year = 2003, url = {http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/mc/mc2003.html#LehelMS03}, ee = {http://mc.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/konferenzbaende/mc2003/konferenzband/muc2003-22-lehel.pdf}, date = {2005-01-20}, description = {Weblogs as tool for enterprise knowledge management; support Communities of Practice}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2d58cd723d519ce0bc41240fdee50dc6b/boehr}, keywords = {blog CoP km} } @incollection{Hilzensauer2008, title = {Wikis und Weblogs bei Sun Microsystems}, address = {München}, author = {Wolf Hilzensauer and Sandra Schaffert}, booktitle = {Web 2.0 in der Unternehmenspraxis}, editor = {Andrea Back and Norbert Gronau and Klaus Tochtermann}, pages = {210-220}, publisher = {Oldenbourg}, year = 2008, url = {http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3486585797/communixx}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/282eb36fc0dd8f5546d326b9d5c050483/kochm}, keywords = {socialsoftware knowledgemanagement casestudy enterprise2.0 blog sun wiki} } @incollection{Ehms2008, title = {Globale Mitarbeiter-Weblogs bei der Siemens AG}, address = {München}, author = {Karsten Ehms}, booktitle = {Web 2.0 in der Unternehmenspraxis}, editor = {Andrea Back and Norbert Gronau and Klaus Tochtermann}, pages = {199-209}, publisher = {Oldenbourg}, year = 2008, url = {http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3486585797/communixx}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/205158a029f9bd74684e7e64db957b45b/kochm}, keywords = {enterprise2.0 socialsoftware siemens blog casestudy knowledgemanagement} } @incollection{Hain2008, title = {Unternehmensinterner Multiblog der Namics AG}, address = {München}, author = {Stefanie Hain and Bernd Schopp}, booktitle = {Web 2.0 in der Unternehmenspraxis}, editor = {Andrea Back and Norbert Gronau and Klaus Tochtermann}, pages = {187-198}, publisher = {Oldenbourg}, year = 2008, url = {http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3486585797/communixx}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/272661e56b8d21eb723cea005d2f7d548/kochm}, keywords = {enterprise2.0 knowledgemanagement casestudy socialsoftware blog namics} } @incollection{Koch2008, title = {Das IntraWeb 2.0 bei cablecom}, address = {München}, author = {Leila Summa and Michael Koch}, booktitle = {Web 2.0 in der Unternehmenspraxis}, editor = {Andrea Back and Norbert Gronau and Klaus Tochtermann}, pages = {221-233}, publisher = {Oldenbourg}, year = 2008, url = {http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3486585797/communixx}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/21a05ac37ec2916082347a3252dedb31d/kochm}, keywords = {blog socialsoftware intranet cscm casestudy wiki enterprise2.0 own} } @article{keyhere, title = {Weblogs in Unternehmen}, author = {Jan Schmidt}, journal = {Web 2.0}, pages = {121--135}, year = 2008, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73701-8_8}, description = {Article about corporate blogs and statistics}, abstract = {Weblogs sind — neben Wikis und Social-Networking-Plattformen — das derzeit wohl am stärksten diskutierte Format des Web 2.0. Für diesen Stellenwert ist neben der rein quantitativen Verbreitung vor allem der Umstand verantwortlich, dass die spezifischeKommunikationsarchitektur von Weblogs zur Herausbildung neuer Öffentlichkeiten beiträgt. Diese ergänzen teilweise die bestehendenÖffentlichkeiten des Journalismus und der professionellen Marktkommunikation, fordern sie teilweise aber auch heraus: Leitideenwie Authentizität, Dialogorientierung und dezentraler Austausch, die mit Weblogs verbunden sind, machen sie für eine Vielzahlvon Personen attraktiv, die nach Alternativen zur oft als unauthentisch, gar manipulativ empfundenen Kommunikation von Massenmedien,Marketing und PR suchen. Indem sie die Merkmale bereits etablierter Online-Formate, namentlich der Homepage und des Diskussionsforumskombinieren, schließen Weblogs an bekannte Nutzungsmuster an, betonen aber deutlich stärker den Stellenwert des einzelnenAutors, der regelmäßig zu bestimmten Themen relevante Informationen publiziert.}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/218a928c15e4b24c69edd65f3fdfb721d/boehr}, keywords = {blog} } @article{keyhere, title = {Corporate Web 2.0 Applications}, author = {Harald Kortzfleisch and Ines Mergel and Shakib Manouchehri and Mario ER Schaarschmidt}, journal = {Web 2.0}, pages = {73--87}, year = 2008, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73701-8_5}, description = {Overview over corporate web 2.0, graphic with blogs for project management}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/251e55e08ec3951a09c2bb14709a54cb9/boehr}, keywords = {web2.0 blog} } @article{Ness2007-09-03CBO, title = {China Businesscast: Olympics Marketing Part 4}, author = {Robert Ness}, journal = {Danwei.org}, month = {September 3rd, 2:28 PM}, year = {2007-09-03}, url = {http://www.danwei.org/public_relations/}, timestamp = {2008.05.18}, markedentry = {[afeld]}, owner = {afeld}, description = {May08}, abstract = {2008 Torch Relay RouteThis is the final part of our series on Olympics communications. In this episode I speak with the PR executive at Ketchum Newscan who is handling the Olympics campaign for Lenovo. He discusses the "digital press conference" used to announce Lenovo's design for the Olympic torch. Not mentioned in this episode is that the media buzz following the torch announcement was drowned out by the news of Taiwan denying Beijing's torch relay plans. Though it is common for PR announcements to get swept away by sexier news stories, it still serves as a reminder of how politics is casting a shadow on the 2008 Olympics. Olympics Marketing Part 1 Olympics Marketing Part 2: I continue with Imagethief and Tom Doctoroff on the Olympics, this time tackling ambush marketing, the way non-sponsors can get in on the Olympic action. Imagethief gives us examples of ambush marketing and warns us of the legal trouble that companies could find themselves in down the road if they attempt this type of campaign. Tom Doctoroff, CEO Greater China of JWT, seems more optimistic about the opportunities for non-sponsoring brands, and gives good examples. Olympics Marketing Part 3 Olympics Communications: Executive Summary As some interviewee's have commented the Beijing Olympics are tied to national and even individual aspirations — a volatile context for which a marketing message. Moreover, laws regarding Olympics-related marketing are strict. Companies paying millions to be Olympics sponsors must worry about their messages getting lost in all the noise. For others, the difference between success and failure in an Olympics-related marketing campaign is the difference between finding a goldmine and hitting a land mine. From a PR perspective, the Olympics is an opportunity to build national image and credibility, this is as true for China as it has been for other countries in the past. The stakes are high for China considering the emotional stake citizens have in the Games, as well as China's goals for affecting how the country is perceived abroad. This makes for an ominous prospect of a "PR crisis" occurring for China during the Games. In the blogosphere, the consensus is environmental problems and activism are the main threats. In terms of activism, the concern is about how the government will respond to the activists, as well as the activities of activists themselves. Notably, not many people are talking about terrorism. As former ChinaBusinesscast interviewees have pointed out, the negative feedback effects of blogs and BBS's combined with online nationalism make PR crises in China particularly nasty. Any news worthy event that occurs during the 2008 Olympics will be magnified greatly on BBS sites in China. Most notably, this is will be the first Olympics held since blogging has become mainstream in China or anywhere else. Summer 2008 will be an interesting time for online media. Links and Sources CNet: Lenovo's Torch Design Washington Post: Taiwan Rejects China's Torch Relay Plans On Danwei: Mia Farrow's Campaign; Showing off the real China at the Olympics: ; Just how bad is the air in Beijing?; Let the Spiel begin; Bloggers analyze Olympic traffic test China PR guru Image Thief: Politics of the Olympics Global Voices: A roundup of Chinese blogs on this subject (some later deleted). Boingboing: Olympic Stadium Designer Rebels; Activist Blogging in Beijing Chinadialogue: Beijing's Olympics-sized Traffic Problem.}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/210bd7814281575274e6b9fac9903d5db/acf}, keywords = {danwei PR public_relations Olympics Lenovo blog} } @article{Moss20051101APa, title = {Are PR and MNCs Corrupting Chinese Media?}, author = {William Moss}, journal = {Imagethief (Blog)}, month = {29.01.8:14 AM}, note = {Imagethief is William Moss, a public relations professional and writer working in China since 2004. The opinions in this blog are his own, not those of his agency. For more information see "About Imagethief", below.}, year = 20051101, url = {http://news.imagethief.com/blogs/china/archive/2005/11/01/4968.aspx}, timestamp = {2008.05.18}, markedentry = {[afeld]}, owner = {afeld}, description = {May08}, abstract = {The week before last I had lunch with a foreign correspondent who asked me if there was corruption in PR in China. Although I was only providing background, and not speaking to him on the record, I was, to put it politely, diplomatic in my answer. Ever mindful of the brand that graces my business-card, it’s an issue that I tend to tread lightly upon. I did, however, send him on to a friend who has been here longer than me and who works independently and is, therefore, inclined to be more forthcoming about such things. But the topic arose again last week, courtesy of bloggers Bingfeng, of Bingfeng Teahouse, and Myrick, of Asiapundit. Bingfeng fired the first shot in a post telling foreigners who complain about China’s media restrictions to find something better to do with their time. The crux of his argument was the blocking of any individual site affects only a few thousand people. However, a pervasive culture of media corruption fostered by “foreign MNCs” (multinational corporations) affects everyone in China: As we all know, the blocking of these web sites, in its worst situation, influence the life of a few thousands in china, while at the same time, the corrupt journalists/media taking money from firms and various organizations and writing misleading articles to fool the public is a everyday story in china, as i know, the norm of taking money from firms to make favorable media exposures was cultivated by many MNCs in china, which bribe chinese journalists in the name of "media PR" or "marketing PR" activities, and bribe them when they have a "PR crisis". such collusion affects the lives of millions of people and you could do something to change it, especially a lot of them are related with MNCs in china. There is some truth in what Bingfeng wrote. On this site I have previously written, tongue somewhat in cheek, of the “transportation claim” commonly paid to journalists who attend press events in China. According to the journalist I had lunch with, foreign technology companies originated this practice about ten years ago. I don’t know the detailed history. Anyone who does is invited to comment. So I agree with Bingfeng to some extent. However, before he makes me his “star of the week” again, he needs to read on, because I’m going to bite later. Myrick posted a rather interesting response to Bingfeng. First, he pointed out that he, a foreign correspondent by day, was recently offered 500 RMB (about US$60) himself while attending an event sponsored by a nameless European telecommunications firm. He mentioned that, although he refused the money, three Chinese journalists who were present accepted. I suspect that this was vanilla “transportation claim” (车马费) as 500 RMB is the amount typically offered to journalists who attend an event from out of town, while 200 RMB is the going rate for journalists from in town. If Myrick was attending an event in the town he is based in, then there is some inflation happening. I would like to point out that whoever offered Myrick the money, even if it was simply transportation claim, was an idiot or badly trained. Foreign correspondents work differently than Chinese ones on many levels. Any PR firm, local or foreign, that doesn’t train their staff on these differences is courting trouble. In my company we often dissuade clients from mixing local and foreign journalists not only because it makes things like the transportation claim awkward, but because we often have different messages for domestic and overseas audiences. In a rebuttal to Bingfeng that I agreed with, Myrick wrote the following: Bingfeng is correct that this is a serious problem for China - a 2003 study by the Institute for Public Relations [proxy link – WM] puts China dead last in a list of 66 countries in a study on the acceptability of bribery for coverage. Still, by citing the existence of this problem as a criticism of free-speech advocates he is making a common fallacy of argument by evading the issue. This is also known as the Chewbacca defense. That last link is from the blocked-in-China Wikipedia. I regret that readers here won't be able to access it without a proxy. The problems of censorship in and press bribery in China are related issues, both shape the content of news here. But to say that censorship of a website is something that only affects a "few thousand" is a gross understatement. While it may be only a handful of residents who are affected by a block on a single blogspot site, the control of information in China promotes ignorance, retards democratic development and prevents the building of an educated civil society. This affects 1.3 billion. The report that Myrick points to is well worth looking at. The reason why I agree with Myrick’s response, besides correctly calling out the “Chewbacca defense”, is that it points out that there is a relationship between corruption of the media and censorship. I think that relationship is quite deep, and has to do with how the media have evolved here and what Chinese societal expectations of the media are. I also think that relationship should be looked at in terms of corruption in general. Not to be dissuaded, Bingfeng came back with the following: [The] so-called "bribery for coverage" is more than just giving money to get favorable media exposures, thanks to the cultivatons of MNCs in china, the collusion between media and business has evolved into more sophisticated forms that influence/manipulate the public and they are unfortuantely followed by more and more organizations and individuals. khodorkovski-style chinese firms are on the horizons and their agents are already very active. this imposes an immediate threat to the emerging "civil society" in china, not the censorship. "free speech/press fighters" could do something to change the media corruptions, but in the short term i don't see their chant could do anything to reduce the media censorships. MNCs are the one who set the norms of media bribery, government "PR", media "PR", marketing "PR", etc. and our "free speech/press fighters" could do something to ask them to change the norms or even follow a more strict business ethics. this is a more approachable goal. like many things in china, the dysfunctional part of the system is not removed directly through a confrontational approach, but through the cultivations of incremental parts of the system. a less corrupt media will forster an environment that leads to less censorship. the only disadvantage of a different roadmap is that hte process will be less satisfying for the moral superiority of some westerners and perhaps doesn't fit into the political agendas of some of them. Here again, Bingfeng is half right. There is “collusion between media and business [that] has evolved into more sophisticated forms that influence/manipulate the public.” We call that public relations, and it’s what I do for a living. But no matter how distasteful you might find it, it is not necessarily corrupt, and seems not to have undermined civil society in most of the rest of the world. The origins of the transportation claim notwithstanding, blaming MNCs and PR companies for corruption in the Chinese media is absurd. Complicit though they may sometimes be, it’s like blaming vultures for the death of your horse in the desert. This argument is the reframing of a victimization theme I often see wielded against foreigners and multinationals when discussing problems in China. It plays well on nationalist sentiments and often does a really good job of deflecting attention away from serious, underlying issues worthy of scrutiny. The Chewbacca defense, as Myrick pointed out. Furthermore, to suggest that a cleaner media will lead to fewer restrictions on free speech is, quite simply, to put the cart before the horse. I believe the exact opposite is true. Free speech and a less fettered press are much more likely to be effective weapons against corruption. Who Are You Calling Corrupt? Chinese companies and institutions, as anyone who lives here rapidly learns, are quite capable of corruption without any foreign influence whatsoever. Corruption, in the media or anywhere else, isn’t something that springs up spontaneously, or as the result of the wicked influence of foreign MNCs, who are perennial favorite targets of Chinese nationalism. Corruption is like a gas. It’s always there and it expands to fill the shape and volume of the space available for it. The volume of space available for corruption is created by lack of transparency and by well established patterns of government and commercial behavior. While many countries, including the United States, have corruption, China leaves a comparatively wide-open space for it. For some details, sift through Transparency International’s website, which ranks China at number 78, alongside such illustrious company as Morocco, Sri Lanka, Senegal and Suriname. Or this more recent article (subscription) by Andrew Yeh, one of the Financial Times’ Beijing-based journalists, on the OECD’s assessment on the impact of widespread corruption in China. However, this isn’t to say that some MNCs won’t collude with corruption. MNCs tend to be amoral beasts that adapt themselves superbly to any environment in which they need to operate. Many governments are aware of this, which explains laws like the United States’ Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Companies like mine often help to clean up the mess when MNCs get caught misbehaving. Bingfeng may be shocked to learn how often those cleanup efforts involve absolutely no bribes. For the record, in my time in the PR industry in China, I have never witnessed anything I felt to be corrupt. I have never seen anyone in my company do anything I felt was corrupt. Nor, in the course of their work with me, have any of my clients, all MNCs, done anything I felt was corrupt or even borderline. One of my clients’ policies on separating advertising and paid coverage from PR is so strict that we don’t even help with advertorial copy, something I did all the time in Singapore. If I was asked to do something I felt was wrong, I would decline to do it and warn whoever was asking me of the consequences. If necessary, I would resign before compromising myself, my colleagues or my company. I don’t think this is likely to happen, so it doesn’t keep me up nights. Our (Chinese) finance director is one of the most scrupulous and careful men I have ever met. He is constantly reminding us of our financial disclosure and probity obligations as part of a listed, international media conglomerate. Furthermore, despite the occasional ghastly scandal, there is no company as aware of the value of its reputation as a global PR company. None of this, however, means that Bingfeng is wrong about there being corruption in the media or in PR in China. Within our office, it’s the local, Chinese PR firms that take the most flack for corruption. Chinese consultants in my office have spoken to me many times of what they perceive as the distinctly lower ethical standards of local firms. This may simply be their pride talking, or just empty gossip. Although given how close many of our Chinese consultants are to Chinese journalists, they’d be in a position to hear about anything that happens. Now, allow me to pose a hypothetical scenario. If you’re MNC X, and you want to buy some coverage savaging your bitter competitor, MNC Y, in the China market, which of the two following PR firms would you use to arrange it? The SOX compliant multinational PR firm with public company accounting requirements and an international reputation to protect or, The privately held, locally owned firm with no international reputation or financial disclosure obligations. Simple risk management suggests the latter would be a better choice. Now perhaps, was this to actually happen, it would be a case of a wicked MNC leading an otherwise chaste Chinese PR company down the dark path of corruption. More likely, it would be willing buyer/willing seller. Furthermore, I’d be shocked Smurf blue to hear that Chinese companies, forever battling their own corruption demons, would turn up their noses at these methods. I don’t think they’d need to learn the trick from foreign MNCs. In case you are wondering, although I think it’s a bad idea, I don’t feel that the transportation claim is corrupt. Media corruption thrives in the dark, when its influence is hidden. The transportation claim is completely matter-of-fact and auditable. You can follow the trail, from our cost estimate for events to our invoices to clients to the list of exactly which journalists showed up at a press event, and their sign-in signatures. It’s never guaranteed us good coverage, or even attendance at events. Frankly, I think it’s a desperate waste of money, and it will be a good day for the maturity of Chinese media when it is abolished. But that will only happen when the Chinese media decide for themselves to abolish it, or when all companies with PR efforts in China, both local and foreign, decide to abolish it together. It would take a company with a large risk appetite indeed to unilaterally decide no longer offer the transportation claim, especially while their competitors still did. Is my position hypocrisy? Or rationalization? Maybe. What is this Media of which You Speak? I have been working in China for just over a year, and I, as an individual, am not an expert on the Chinese media. But I have been involved in media-related work, one way or another, for thirteen years, my graduate degree is in media studies, and I work in an industry whose stock in trade is an understanding of media. With that disclosure, you may take the following observations as you will. The problem with Chinese media is not that it is being corrupted by ne’er-do-well foreign MNCs or PR firms. Rather, it is that the Chinese media are in transition from explicit state control to something subtler and more reflective of modern Chinese society. It has become something that isn’t developed country media, but which looks like it from a distance. Bound up in this transition are the ongoing changes in China’s media regulations as the government tries to figure out what it wants Chinese media to be, and shifting public expectations of what role the media should play in Chinese society. The tremors of this transition have been documented in Chinese media, overseas media and, not least, by the China blogging community. An interesting recent example includes ESWN’s post on fraudsters representing themselves as journalists. If all this seems like a recipe for confusion…it is. This shows in, yes, the opportunities for corruption and, more mundanely, in how the media relate to authority, to multinationals and, of course, to PR firms. There is a relationship aspect to PR work everywhere. It’s formalized. We call it, surprisingly enough, “media relations”. An ability to build good relationships with journalists is one of our marketable skills. Here in China, our relationships with journalists are especially cozy. Not corrupt, mind you, just cozy. This coziness isn’t unique to China any more than media corruption or the influence of corporate or state parent organizations. Anyone who thinks that the US, for example, is immune to this hasn’t been following the salacious Plamegate affair. This has done wonders to illuminate the shameful coziness that greases the operations of both the Washington DC press corps and the spin-obsessed White House. But in China this coziness is more pervasive. Although I never did PR in the US, I did do it in Singapore, which also has state-controlled media often accused of pliancy. Even in Singapore, no matter how good my personal relationships with journalists were (and they were pretty good), there was often an adversarial quality to the professional relationship. That wasn’t necessarily expressed in hostility or bad press, but in healthy skepticism, tough questions, and wariness of spin. All qualities of a decent press corps. Here in China I find, on average, that it is much easier for us to control a line of questioning or set it in advance, review coverage and quotes before they go to press, suggest themes and anticipate the tone of stories. Journalists here often expect us to package stories quite completely for them, giving us yet more room to set the agenda. We have stenographers at most media events, and send complete transcripts of press conferences and round tables to the journalists who attend them, often on the same day. It is expected that we will do this. When we can package a story more completely, we can dictate its tone more effectively. Among my Chinese team members, the nickname for pliant journalists is “rabbits”. Not the image of ferocity. Now, I want to stress two important things. First, relationships are not a red carpet. We flacks in China are not excused from having to come up with good pitches and interesting events. And we’re not immune to bad press, by any stretch of the imagination. We also have real PR challenges that are unique to doing business in China. It’s just that the relationships are more central to how we work. In the land of guanxi, this is not so surprising. Second, and most important, my observations above are industry generalizations. I know many extremely bright and motivated Chinese journalists who take real pride in their work. They are capable of asking dynamite questions, picking up killer angles, and writing hard-hitting and intelligent stories. Chinese journalists have suffered and died for their commitment to their work, and for their integrity and many are worthy of the highest respect. (Contrary to what you might think, most PR people are news junkies and really appreciate dynamite journalism, as long as it isn’t causing trouble for our own clients.) Even many of the “rabbits” are good, smart people working in an established system. Please do not interpret my observations as a condemnation of Chinese journalists. Some Chinese media pliancy may simply be a result of a wildly booming industry that is hungry for content. The seller of a product that is in high demand, such as particular content, exerts more control. That’s why Hollywood publicists can dictate question lists for stars, whereas corporate flacks like me seldom can. But I think some of it also descends from the Chinese media’s recent legacy of control and management from above. Chinese media are still evolving their editorial standards and modes of operation. PR firms, multinationals and Chinese firms will all figure out how best to operate and achieve their goals in this environment. That might be cynical, and you don’t have to like it, but it isn’t corrupt. Ruthlessly separating my preferences as a media consumer from my objectives as a PR pro, I am under no obligation to tell a journalist to ask tougher questions of my client. Mouthpieces or Watchdogs? What does China want from its media? Let me return to the idea that started it all off: the relationship between free speech and corruption. The media can be a potent weapon in fighting corruption, given the space to do so. A few years ago, Jiang Zemin appeared to recognize this when he cited media as one of the country’s great tools in its perennial war against corruption. Of course the media themselves were fighting their own corruption demons in ways that went far beyond low-rent payola for good coverage, as 2004 busts of senior editorial staff from the well known Southern Metropolis News and Nanfang Daily Group showed. But beyond media’s own corruption problems, counting on them to help unmask corruption demands independence and a culture of enterprise that needs room to grow. The current government seems to have different ideas, as this recent article from The Economist (subscription) reports: The Chinese government's increasingly hardline stance is encapsulated in Document 16, promulgated this spring. Among other things, this banned the practice of yidi baodao, or “reports from non-local places”, with journalists travelling to distant cities where, free of their local minders, they could write harder-hitting stories about corrupt local officials or social unrest. “This was the best hope for China developing an open press,” says Mr [Nicolas] Becquelin [of human-rights group HRIC]. In Hong Kong, papers critical of China, like Apple Daily, are complaining that advertisers are fleeing because of threats to their mainland businesses. Journalists there are suddenly finding it harder to get visas for travel to the mainland. These regulations were also covered nicely by the invaluable Chinese media blog, Danwei. Even more worrying, some suggest that anti-corruption drives in China are simply tools to clean out the lingering remnants of the previous power structure and, bizarrely, to implement monetary policy, as suggested by this Asia Times Online article. So, even in their role as corruption fighters, the Chinese media face the specter of being cynically deployed tools of state policy. Media can, of course, be effective weapons against corruption, whether that’s corruption in government, business or within their own industry. Even if, for no other reason than fulfilling their own business objectives by attracting eyeballs, most publications love nothing more than to break a big scandal wide open. But that will never happen here unless the government can decide what role the media should fill in society: mouthpieces or watchdogs. They can’t be both. You can’t state-manage a media industry to effectiveness as anti-corruption crusaders, and keep it muzzled at the same time. You have to do the opposite. Give them space, in the form of freedom of the press, which is just another way of saying freedom of speech. That will help to lift the veil on corruption everywhere including, yes, in the media itself. So when we arrogant foreigners rail against the restrictions on the Chinese media, we aren’t ignoring the problem of corruption in the media, or anywhere else. In fact, we are advocating for the unleashing of China’s most potent weapon against corruption. A truly free media. Filed under: China, PR & Media (Old)}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2e76652b006f9f9d12ace68c97e73ab68/acf}, keywords = {blog fun corruption PR&media PR Public_Relations China Chinese_media Shanghai} } @article{Moss20070129WEC, title = {WaPo's Ed Cody on media bribery in China}, author = {William Moss}, journal = {Imagethief (Blog)}, month = {29.01.8:14 AM}, note = {Imagethief is William Moss, a public relations professional and writer working in China since 2004. The opinions in this blog are his own, not those of his agency. For more information see "About Imagethief", below.}, year = 20070129, url = {http://news.imagethief.com/blogs/china/archive/2007/01/29/8308.aspx}, timestamp = {2008.05.18}, markedentry = {[afeld]}, owner = {afeld}, description = {May08}, abstract = {How did I miss this? The Washington Post's Ed Cody has written a fascinating story (via David Wolf's Silicon Hutong) about a syndrome we in the PR business in China run into regularly: the practice of media extortion in China. I can't comment extensively right now, but this is a very real issue. Cody gets into the history and consequences of the practice: In many ways, blackmail journalism grew naturally out of a system in which Communist Party censors control the news rigorously, barring reports that could be seen as unfavorable to the party or contrary to the government's political goals. If the ruling party distorts the news for political reasons, blackmailing reporters have concluded, why wouldn't they do it themselves for financial reasons? In addition, local party officials, long used to manipulating information, have been complicit in the payoff system when it suits their needs. In the everybody-does-it atmosphere, even non-reporters have found ways to get in on the take by posing as journalists. After the August 2005 mine disaster, for instance, reporters and their friends in Henan province dispatched a flurry of cellphone messages as soon as they heard the news -- not because they were eager to report on it, but because they knew local officials would be eager to hush it up. By the time Fan Youfeng of the Henan Business News arrived at the mine, in a village in Jiliao county, local officials said they had already given money to so many reporters and phony reporters that the coffers were dry. But still more people showed up, Fan wrote, and the officials sought more cash, pressing the mine owners to chip in. Journalists and poseurs lined up to get their handouts, he said, with some pushing and jumping the queue. Over several days, the extortionists carried away 200,000 yuan, or more than $25,000, he reported, quoting officials and a list signed by those who got the cash. Encouraged by Ma, his editor, Fan wrote a story for the Henan Business News about what had happened. It was the first open discussion of what had become a widespread if secretive practice, Ma said with a note of pride. As a result, however, an official from the central government propaganda department visited from Beijing and accused Ma of publishing an "inappropriate" and "false" story. The newspaper was suspended for a month, Ma was forced to retire and Fan was reprimanded, Ma said. The death toll from the mine disaster was never reported, he added. Don't miss David's own post on this issue. David is a former colleague of mine and veteran of public relations in China. David explains how companies fall into this trap and lays down a very clear policy for avoiding it. He writes: There's only one way to avoid [falling into this trap]: Repeat after me: "No matter what my PR people, my PR agency, or anyone else tells me, OUR COMPANY WILL NEVER PAY FOR COVERAGE, either directly or indirectly." I wonder how many of our agencies follow that very sound advice.}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2c2a53c370cf8baeb2bb5c97129e6dcc0/acf}, keywords = {Shanghai Public_Relations Chinese_media blog PR China corruption fun PR&media} } @article{Moss20070203SPb, title = {Saturday PR blog: I'm sorry, the government has killed your story}, author = {William Moss}, journal = {Imagethief (Blog)}, month = {03.02. 4:20 AM}, note = {Imagethief is William Moss, a public relations professional and writer working in China since 2004. The opinions in this blog are his own, not those of his agency. For more information see "About Imagethief", below.}, year = 20070203, url = {http://news.imagethief.com/blogs/china/archive/2007/08/14/jim-yardley-on-the-olympics-and-politics.aspx}, timestamp = {2008.05.18}, markedentry = {[afeld]}, owner = {afeld}, description = {May08}, abstract = {Colleagues from American and European offices often ask Imagethief how PR in China is different from PR in the west. Usually I give a two-part answer. First I tell them that were they to step into our offices in China they would see many things that they would instantly recognize as garden variety PR. We write press releases, organize events, craft angles and pitch stories to competitive publications and journalists, develop communication strategies and train executives in how to handle the media, among other things. But then I tell them about what's different, usually sticking to the highlights. In the best diplomatic, spin-doctorese I tell them that the Chinese media's "ethical framework is not entirely developed". By which I mean that it is, in many ways, a corrupt swamp. (This is something of a theme in the foreign media recently, having been covered by the Washington Post, New York Times and AP with the Lan Chengzhang case as catalyst.) The other difference is that the government has explicit power over the media agenda. Most of the time, self-censorship is the rule. However the propaganda ministry --中宣部-- also sends out guidance on sensitive issues to major media. Editors who want to keep their jobs are expected to toe the line. Occasionally an acute issue will motivate a directive to halt coverage of a topic, as when media were directed to layoff the Foxconn-Apple scandal of last year. (Recently this has led to proscribed topics sloshing over into journalists' and editors' blogs, but that's a topic for ESWN.) We were reminded of the realities of government management of the media agenda recently, shortly after arranging an interview between one of our MNC clients and a Chinese business magazine. The magazine in question had requested the interview, with an eye on exploring our client's business and investments in China. The discussion was vigorous but reasonably balanced and we were expecting a decent article as a result, with publication planned prior to Chinese New Year. About two weeks after the interview, one of the editors involved called us and said the story would be "delayed". Apparently the magazine had just received guidance from the Propaganda Ministry to be more "sensitive" in publishing stories that involved foreign investment, particularly around certain industries or well-known Chinese brands. We had not, at first blush, considered the story we were developing to be particularly risky or sensitive. But the journalists and editors at the magazine were, as you would expect, taking the ministerial guidance extremely seriously. So we had to wait, and so did our client. But clients who make busy senior (foreign) executives available expect explanations about these kinds of things. "Hey, dude, it's China," doesn't really cut it, so we did a little poking around. The back-story is illustrative of one of the challenges of the PR biz in China. Anyone who follows current affairs in China will know that these are delicate times for discussing the topic of foreign investment. Questions are being raised about the quality of foreign investment and the intent behind it. Early last November the 11th Five Year Plan was published. It put a great deal of emphasis on the quality of foreign investment. In this English Xinhua article about the plan, the money graf --as far as we were concerned-- is the very last one: In response to the rising concern over foreign acquisitions of leading Chinese firms in critical sectors, the document says China will speed up legislation and step up the supervision of sensitive acquisitions and takeovers to ensure critical industries and enterprises remain under Chinese control. Shortly thereafter, it seems the initial guidance to treat reporting around this topic sensitively was passed on to at least some Chinese media. The publication we were dealing with was government-linked, and had little wiggle-room as far as interpreting this directive to be "sensitive". Unfortunately, apparently, they had somehow missed the memo and in their previous issue published an article that had raised eyebrows upstairs. This had resulted in a ministerial reminder to toe the line, which descended, Rumsfeldian snowflake fashion, into the in-boxes of the editors of the magazine we were working with the day before they called to tell us that they had to postpone. My initial response when the Chinese media-relations guru on my team told me that the magazine had to postpone the story because of a government directive was to assume they were giving me a polite brush-off. Similar, perhaps, to what you might get if a Western editor didn't like the story a journalist had put together on your client, and the journalist in question wanted to tell you something more polite than, "The editor thinks your interview was crap on a stick." "Are they yanking our chain?" was the first question I asked her. Some of our other Chinese team members, including one of our government relations people, had the same first reaction, so it wasn't just foreigner-itis. But after some research and phone calls turned up the story above I changed my opinion. At the very least, if it was an excuse, it was a damn well substantiated one with abundant face-saving for everyone. In which case, my face duly saved, I could sleep well at night. The net result, however, is that our story went on the back burner, where it remains until the publication feels that it can once again broach the topic of foreign investment in certain industries, or hell freezes over (whichever comes first). And now I have one more piece of due-diligence to do when identifying Chinese media to work with in future. Such is one of the many things that make PR in China such a rush. Filed under: China, PR & Media (Old)}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/231c2dc3afd89ea8229cd71b41f6478db/acf}, keywords = {Shanghai PR olympics blog fun Public_Relations} } @article{Moss20070814JYO, title = {Jim Yardley on the Olympics and politics}, author = {William Moss}, journal = {Imagethief (Blog)}, month = {14. August 7:17 AM}, note = {Imagethief is William Moss, a public relations professional and writer working in China since 2004. The opinions in this blog are his own, not those of his agency. For more information see "About Imagethief", below.}, year = 20070814, url = {http://news.imagethief.com/blogs/china/archive/2007/08/14/jim-yardley-on-the-olympics-and-politics.aspx}, timestamp = {2008.05.18}, markedentry = {[afeld]}, owner = {afeld}, description = {May08}, abstract = {Jim Yardley, of the New York Times and International Herald Tribune, sums up the situation facing Beijing nicely in a "Letter from China" column in the IHT: [If] anything was evident last week when Beijing staged a one-year countdown to the 2008 Games, it was that eliminating politics from the Olympics was about as likely as eliminating medals. Beijing may have envisioned a public relations opportunity, but so did an array of advocacy groups that spent the week whipsawing China on human rights violations, press freedom and Tibet. If a few stunts were daring - protesters unfurled a "Free Tibet" banner on the Great Wall - the criticisms were not new. What did change was the way the Olympics amplified the dissent, even for a nonevent like the one-year countdown. Media attention intensified merely because the Olympics were in town. "All of these voices are going to become stronger and stronger, not weaker and weaker, as the Games approach," said John MacAloon, an Olympic historian who has advised the Beijing Olympic committee on managing the traditional torch relay. "All Olympic Games are, of course, highly politically charged and sensitive in some regions of the world. How could they not be?" For about as long as the modern Games have existed, they have served as a stage for politics as much as sport. Berlin 1936 was Hitler and Jesse Owens. Helsinki 1952 was the beginning of the Cold War. Mexico City 1968 was the Black Power salute. The blood of 11 slain Israeli athletes stained Munich 1972. Moscow 1980 meant boycotts, as did Los Angeles 1984. It's worth a read, and reaffirms some of the challenges I've noted here. One thing noted in this article that I've noted before is that the Olympics have essentially always been political. Step one in solving a problem is acknowledging you have one. Once Beijing reconciles itself to the idea that the Olympics will be politicized, and starts working out how to manage that as constructively as possible, its path will become smoother. Also, unremarked in the PR roundup I did for last week was that another politician, Maxine Waters of California, has floated the Olympic boycott idea (joining presidential candidate Bill Richardson). For what its worth, Imagethief thinks that is a stupendously bad idea and about as likely as sending a US team composed entirely of poodles. But ideas like that will gain more visibility in the next year. Previously (and growing by the week): Bang! China shoots its own Olympic PR in the foot Does BOCOG need to raise China's Olympic PR game? Don't politicize the Olympics? It's much too late for that... AP: China watching NGOs prior to Olympics Democratic presidential candidates kick around the Olympic boycott football Did the "Genocide Olympics" influence China? Filed under: China, Public Relations and Media, Olympics}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2251cc6cb9348105ebf48212a670dce2f/acf}, keywords = {blog fun PR Public_Relations Shanghai olympics} } @article{Moss2008WWE, title = {Wild Wild East...Are you ready for online PR in China?}, author = {Will Moss}, journal = {Asia Perspectives}, year = 2008, url = {http://www.asiaperspective.com/communications_in_practice/10.html}, timestamp = {2008.06.01}, markedentry = {[afeld]}, owner = {afeld}, description = {May08}, abstract = {Companies across Asia increasingly find themselves reacting to events springing unexpectedly out of the internet. Emboldened by the new technologies at their disposal and a sense that they now have a say, people are busily swapping notes on poor quality products, second-rate customer service and a host of other opinions. But nowhere are the noise-levels higher than in China. It is the headline figures that grab your attention: 210 million users as of January, 2008, up fifty percent in a year. An instant messaging platform, QQ,that reaches eighty percent of those users. 47 million bloggers. Countless social networking and video sharing sites. And then there are the forums, the topical bulletin boards that are the heart of China’s Internet, getting about ten million new posts every day. That’s a lot to keep up with. It seems like a PR no-brainer. How can any company doing business in China afford not to use the Internet? Behind those headline numbers lurk some daunting obstacles. For one thing, although China’s absolute number of Internet users is high, overall penetration remains relatively low, at about 16 percent (although concentrated in the economically important major cities). Many people, especially students, access the Internet irregularly using shared computers at schools or Internet cafes. Unlike in the US, where a handful of heavyweight sites rule, China’s Internet market is relatively fragmented. In addition, the regulatory environment is changing by the day. New rules governing content and ownership of video sharing sites were introduced in January, and further regulatory shoes may yet drop into the midst of carefully planned online marketing programs. The challenges are real, but so are the opportunities. The trick with the Internet in China, as with anywhere else, is to be systematic. Consider where your comfort zone is, which audiences are relevant to you, and what influence they might have over mainstream media or offline audiences. Once you have a clear idea of what you want to accomplish and who you need to reach, the landscape can look a lot more manageable. Some of the key things to consider are: Listening There are literally hundreds of thousands of different topical forums in China receiving tens of millions of posts a day. Many of these are hosted on big content sites such as Douban, Tianya and Sina. Every newspaper and magazine in China also hosts forums, not to mention those affiliated with universities and such. Most of these sites don’t support RSS subscriptions, so it’s not always practical to set up an automatic dashboard. Some of the major Chinese search engines, such as Baidu, support RSS for specific searches, however, which can help. Consumer products, especially mobile phones, cars and laptop computers, are among the items most passionately discussed, making monitoring the forums is a good way to catch issues early. But they can also be a good source of insight into what people like and don’t like about your products and how they stack up against the competition. Consider it the world’s largest focus group, there to be listened in on. There are companies that do a good job using software to monitor and analyze vast swathes of the forum space. But an easy way to start can be to identify a few of the most important and active forums and to follow them manually, checking in once or twice a day to see what’s driving the conversation. Blogs are increasingly important in China, but they haven’t displaced the forums as the main form of online participation as has happened elsewhere. But as with forums, it makes good sense to do a little research to identify a few of the most influential bloggers with regard to your company or industry and to follow them. Marketing Big consumer companies are increasingly using the Internet in China for interactive marketing campaigns. Chinese users can be enthusiastic about sharing ideas and content, especially if there is an incentive involved. We’ve helped computer, food and consumer electronic firms to develop campaigns that encouraged users to submit creative ideas and judge other submissions, and otherwise participate directly. When integrated with mainstream marketing and PR these programs can be great ways to build awareness while directly engaging potential customers. The good news is that these kinds of programs rely on your fans (ideally) for content, so you don’t need to worry about recruiting hassled executives to blog. Media Relations While blogging hasn’t knocked the forums off the top of the Chinese Internet hill, there is one audience for which it has become increasingly important: Journalists. Many of China’s most influential bloggers are full-time journalists who use the Internet to express ideas and opinions that don’t always make it into official channels. One example of this is CCTV9 anchor Rui Chenggang, who in January 2006 helped seal the fate of Starbucks’ Forbidden City shop with a critical post on his blog. But it’s not only TV celebrities who are doing this, and it’s not always a crisis. Many trade journalists blog on the side. This provides an opportunity to start exploring less formal kinds of communication, making podcast or online video material available and holding specialty events just for bloggers. And don’t be shy about reaching out to influential non-journalist bloggers as well, although as elsewhere you’ll want to reach out informally to establish a rapport and ascertain interest before engaging. Some Chinese blogging engines and aggregators are now in the business of delivering widespread blog coverage on their networks for a fee. It can be a tempting offer, consolidating the legwork of identifying influencers and making personal outreach. But beware: Chinese Internet users are sophisticated, and getting good at spotting pay-for-play coverage. Nothing beats earned coverage, even in blogs. Company Blogging This is an area that is still only emerging in China. Today there are three main kinds of practitioners: Small, overseas consultancies that want to raise their profiles with analytical English blogs; Chinese branches of big technology firms; and Chinese CEOs who often blog on a mix of personal and company topics (although the two can sometimes be synonymous). For companies concerned about the investment or risks of broad based blogging, identifying a specific audience to reach out to can be a good start. Many of the technology firms running blogs in China have R&D labs here and use their blogs to reach out to the development community. We’ve done something similar for one of our software industry clients, helping to build a “group blog” on which their executives, industry analysts and journalists all contributed posts on a particular development topic. There are also companies in China that use internal blogs to reach out to employees across the nation, or even extended groups like partner networks. We expect company blogging to grow in popularity over time, as companies are discouraged from taking a direct role in forums. Those caught “seeding” forums with planted posts can be ruthlessly savaged. Copying and pasting of articles and blog posts is common in the forums, however, and having a blog is one way to take advantage of this and help your point of view to get represented. Everything Else… There is more. Video sharing is already widely popular in China, and videos are often shared in blogs and forums. Social networks are also growing in popularity, with local heavyweights such as Xiaonei, 51.com, Mop and others dominating the scene and foreign players just beginning to edge in. With all of this going on, there is no one solution to communicating on the Internet in China. But it’s growing in importance and companies operating in China need to pay attention to how discussions on the Internet can affect their reputations. After that, engagement can come one step at a time. It’s OK to start small. It’s OK to just listen. But ignore it at your peril.}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2016d2c0582918b69992324dc3397ff1c/acf}, keywords = {public_relations blogging blog online_PR PR} } @article{Martinsen20080304Ura, title = {Unwritten rules at a government press conference? Say it ain't so}, author = {Joel Martinsen}, journal = {danwei.org}, month = {March 4, 2008 10:45 AM}, year = 20080304, url = {http://www.danwei.org/media/unwritten_rules_at_a_governmen.php}, timestamp = {2008.05.30}, markedentry = {[afeld]}, owner = {afeld}, description = {May08}, abstract = {At Sunday's press conference ahead of the opening of the CPPCC session, a reporter with MASTV asked spokesman Wu Jianmin whether there were "unwritten rules" governing the press conference, rules that gave mainstream state media organizations the ability to control the tone of the proceedings. Wu responded by saying that all reporters are treated equally. Liao Weihua, a reporter from the Chengdu Business News who did not get the opportunity to ask a question at the press conference, nevertheless agreed with the spokesman's explanation. In an opinion piece for his newspaper, Liao noted that it's entirely normal for the big state media organizations to be given special consideration at such functions, and this is something that all journalists are aware of. Here's his assessment of the way the slots were handed out: At yesterday's press conference, twelve reporters had the opportunity to ask questions. These reporters were from Xinhua, China News, CNN, MASTV, China Daily, People's Daily Overseas Edition, China County Times, CCTV, Ta Kung Pao, Chongqing CPPCC Report, Beijing Youth Daily, and China Radio International. We can see from this list that apart from Xinhua, CCTV, CRI, and China Daily, which belong to the "mainstream media" that the Macao reporter mentioned, the other eight organizations were chosen at the scene. After the conference, the reporter from China County Times told me that she had raised her hand a number of times before she was finally called on, and at that time her original questions, about the snow-related catastrophe in the south and the appointment of non-party members to official positions, had already been asked, so she hastily threw together a question about economic development in northern Guangxi. But according to her experience, "there'll be opportunities to ask questions, but it depends on luck and your own persistence." China County Times (中国县域经济报) is published by the Economic Daily, a national paper under the joint supervision of the State Council and the party's Publicity Department, and was that paper's rural edition until January 2007. One could quibble with Liao's short list of just four agencies that receive special attention—media blogger aside had a slightly different impression of the proceedings: Unwritten Rules This afternoon at the Great Hall of the People, was the first press conference of the First Session of the 11th National Committee of the CPPCC. Around 5:00pm. The fourth question, from a reporter with MASTV: This year's Two Sessions are the most open they've ever been to the media. My question is, with the way that you call on questioners, are there unwritten rules governing which media organizations you call on in any given situation? Is it a case where a minority of mainstream media organizations gets to call the shots? Spokesman Wu Jianmin: I don't know what you mean by "unwritten rules." From the perspective of the press center, there are indeed rules for conducting a press conference, and under these rules all reporters are equal. The Session's press center will provide as much information as possible to each reporter. About fifty minutes later, the last opportunity to ask a question. Before she asked her question, the woman who was called on said emotionally: for me to be picked is full proof that the press conference has no unwritten rules. I've been raising my hand the last ten times! The spokesman asked her which media organization she belonged to. She said, People's Daily, Overseas Edition. Links and Sources Chengdu Business News (Chinese): Unwritten rules for picking questions? Wu Jianmin's clever response http://www.newssc.org/gb/Newssc/meiti/cdsb/jryw/userobject10ai1382439.html aside's blog (Chinese): Unwritten rules http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_483edf3d01008uun.html 2008-03-02 18:25:05 标签：杂谈 潜规则 今天下午，人民大会堂，全国政协十一届一次会议首场新闻发布会。 17时许，第四个提问的澳门澳亚卫视记者：今年“两会”对媒体算是最开放的一年，请问像这样的钦点提问，每个场合对于点什么样的媒体会不会有潜规则呢？是不是会发生少数主流媒体“一言堂”的状况？ 发言人吴建民：我不知道你讲的“潜规则”是指什么。从大会新闻组的角度来看，举行新闻发布会是有它的规则的，所有的记者，规则面前一律平等。大会新闻组将向各位记者尽可能的提供信息。 约五十分钟后，最后一个提问机会。被点到的女记者发问前激动地说：能点到我充分说明发布会没有潜规则，我举了十遍手！ 发言人提醒她自报所属媒体。 她说：人民日报海外版。 外一则 炮轰 14时许，表弟发来短信：台湾被打了。 我回：啊？被谁打 他：拒绝奥运圣火，被蓝营炮轰 Image from Eastday}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/26ce6f20f60dc9149d5bdc9e297ffd631/acf}, keywords = {regulation CPPCC MASTV blog press_conferences journalism Chinese_media} } @article{DanJanuary282007at08:40PMSPo, title = {The Steep Price of China Public Relations}, author = { Dan}, journal = {China Law Blog}, month = {January 28, 2007 at 08:40 PM}, year = {2007-01-28}, url = {http://www.chinalawblog.com/2007/01/the_steep_price_of_china_publi.html}, timestamp = {2008.05.18}, markedentry = {[afeld]}, owner = {afeld}, description = {May08}, abstract = {My father in law managed a small town newspaper all of his working life. He loves to tell how when his son in law got picked up for some sort of small offense (I am not trying to save anyone here, but it was so inconsequential I truly do not remember what it was) the newspaper ran the story and my father in law made absolutely no effort to intervene. His own son in law's arrest always allowed him to tell everyone who would call him to beg for keeping unflattering news out of the paper that he had not even blocked bad news on his own. Many years ago, I was working on a big case in the United States for a thriving U.S. based company owned by Russians. Our lawsuit was against a Russian company. Early in the case, my client came to me with a newspaper article from a fairly reputable Russian (as in Russia) newspaper. The article was on the company we were suing and it contained pretty much all of the facts we would need to prove our case in the United States. I suggested to my client we immediately contact the reporter to speak with him about where he had gotten the information for his story so we could do likewise. My client coolly replied no call would be necessary because he already knew. Smart client, I thought. Naive me. My client already knew where the reporter had obtained the information because my client had fed all of this information, along with $500, to the reporter and the reporter had printed it. My client had done this in the mistaken belief we would be able to use the article as evidence in our case. Bad case strategy, but good public relations. Much has been written of late how reporters in China go both ways with payments. They not only take money for favorable press coverage, they seek money from people with the threat that if they do not pay, true (or untrue) bad press will follow. The Washington Post did an excellent article on this the other day, entitled, "Blackmailing By Journalists In China Seen As 'Frequent'," and it got me to wondering what foreign companies should do when the media in China knocks on the door. But before I finished, I got my answer from a post on the Silicon Hutong and the answer is don't: There's only one way to avoid this: Repeat after me: "No matter what my PR people, my PR agency, or anyone else tells me, OUR COMPANY WILL NEVER PAY FOR COVERAGE, either directly or indirectly." Say it. Live it. Stick to it. Or be prepared to spend ever-increasing sums of money buying off the jackals. I am not a media guy, but this advice is so similar to what I am always saying about paying bribes (and media payouts are essentially bribes) that I just have to agree. And if you are going to disagree, please at least read the entire post over at Silicon Hutong first. Update: China PR guru, Will Moss, over at ImageThief, calls Silicon Hutong's advice on this "very sound."}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2f407bf44fe4d9a884b3eefb2f19ddc94/acf}, keywords = {public_relations corruption PR blog law} } @techreport{CNNIC2007CR2, title = {CNNIC Releases 2007 Survey Report on China Weblog Market Number of Blog Writers Reaches 47 million Equaling One Fourth of Total Netizens}, author = { CNNIC}, institution = {China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC)}, month = {2007/12/27}, number = 21, type = {Website}, year = 2007, url = {http://www.cnnic.net.cn/html/Dir/2007/12/27/4954.htm}, timestamp = {2008.06.01}, markedentry = {[afeld]}, owner = {afeld}, description = {May08}, abstract = {On Dec. 26th, 2007, CNNIC published “the Survey Report on Blogs in China 2007”. According to the report, by the end of Nov. 2007, the number of blog spaces has reached 72.82 million in China, and with 47 million blog writers, it is reaching one fourth of the total netizens. This indicates the rapid growth of the blog market in China. The survey statistics show that by the end of Nov. 2007, the number of blog spaces has reached 72.82 million in China, while that of blog writers has totaled 47 million, which means that one out of every 30 Chinese, or one out of four netizens writes blogs. Also, the active blog writers have taken up 36% of the total blog writers, approximately 17 million, and the number of valid blog spaces of the active blog users is 28.75 million. By the end of 2006, the number of blog writers was 17.5 million, and within one year the increasement reached nearly 30 million, indicating the large-scale growth in number of the blog writer group. However, as indicated by the survey, the future growth of the blogs will slow down: 65% of the investigated said they only registered one blog, and showed little tendency to register another in half a year; only 11% of the investigated said they would definitely register a blog in the future half a year. The survey also indicates that the blog covers almost all the areas of people’s daily life, including the cultural, military, economic, tourist, living areas, etc. therefore the blog has also become the important channel for people to obtain information. Among the blog writers surveyed in this report, the male gender take up 43% while the female is 57%, which is contrary to the traditional gender ratio of 55:45 (male: female) among netizens, and shows a higher popularity of blogs among female users. In terms of major content the blogs covered, 47% of the blogs are written about the inner monologues or record of emotions of the writers. Next are the narration of daily life, personal interests and hobbies. Most of the blogs are for the writers to record their own life status and conduct self demonstration, with the blogs having a more and more obvious tendency of self-media attributes. The survey also finds that among the motives for reading blogs, entertainment comes first, which is reported to occupy 43% of the surveyed. It will become one of the directions for further probing of the profitable blog model to make full use of the participative, interactive, and circulative characteristics of the blog and dig out the entertainment value of blogs. In addition, although blogs have become an important information channel, the readers obviously have more confident in online news than in blog content. 63% of the surveyed said they trust more in the online news while only 20% have more trust in the blog content. This shows that compared to online news, the blog content at present calls for improvement in its credibility. And as a kind of transmission media, the blogs need the self discipline of the blog writers in order to raise the credibility. The survey shows, in terms of the methods that blog writers choose to access most frequently visited blogs, the primary choice is through the links on the blogs and through the browser bookmarks. 12% of the blog writers directly key in the blog addresses in the address bar, which means 5.64 million blog writers browse their blogs directly by keying in the addresses of the blogs. Judging from the accessing habits, the market of individual domain names looks optimistic in the blog area. Meanwhile, 66% of the surveyed expressed interests in using the individual domain names. And as many as 31% of the surveyed said that if a blog website offers the simple or customized blog domain names at 10 yuan/name, they would consider changing the blog platforms. So for the 1 yuan registration price of .CN domain names, the individual .CN domain names would have a lot to commit itself to in the blog area. The function that blog writers use most frequently is the upload/display function of pictures, also with a high frequency in using music and videos on the blog. Among the new functions or tools the writers mostly long for, the blog writers wish the most is to expand the storage of the blogs space, and being provided with the customized design models of the blog. Meanwhile，10% of the writers responded that they are willing to buy the blog space service. This indicates that the functions of blogs have set apart from the monotone written record, and headed for multi-functions. With the continuous progress in Internet technology, the continuous expansion of Internet cyberspace, and the continuous raise in networking speed, the future blogs will include various technologies such as character, images, audio, video, flash, etc., combing the instant messaging, social network, online shopping and etc., demonstrating having the tendency of becoming the all-around personal space which cover all aspects of information of the blog writer. China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC), the state network information center of China, was founded as a non-profit organization on Jun. 3rd 1997. CNNIC takes orders from the Ministry of Information Industry (MII) to conduct daily business, while it was administratively operated by Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). Computer Network Information Center of Chinese Academy of Sciences takes the responsibility of running and administrating CNNIC. CNNIC Steering Committee..}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/23331c99299a6300bc655abc0941c1f57/acf}, keywords = {blog internet_user blogging netizens China internet statistics} } @website{chinatv2007C, title = {China-TV.net}, crossref = {wang.wang2007pso}, organization = {Shandong TV-net Media Development Corp}, year = 2007, url = {http://blog.chinatv-net.com/mediablog/index.html}, timestamp = {2008.05.04}, markedentry = {[test1]}, owner = {test1}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2caf031b849e5c43e475f59320d42970f/acf}, keywords = {chinese_media blog medgov} } @incollection{CLEE_2_13, title = {Graduate Professional Education from a Community of Practice Perspective: The Role of Social and Technical Networking}, address = {Charlotte, NC}, author = {Linda Polin}, booktitle = {Communities of Practice: Creating Learning Envronments for Educators}, chapter = 13, editor = {Chris Kimble and Paul Hildreth}, pages = {267--286}, publisher = {Information Age Publishing}, volume = 2, year = 2008, url = {http://www.chris-kimble.com/CLEE/Book_2/Chapters/Chapter_13.html}, description = {CLEE}, abstract = {This chapter describes the value and means of re-visioning graduate professional education as an activity that occurs at the intersection of three topics: practice, pedagogy and digital culture. The chapter considers social computing applications as a mechanism to support a shift in the context of graduate professional education from schooling for transfer to situated engagement. The Community of Practice model of learning supports this shift in roles and activities for students and faculty by increasing peer-to-peer engagement and opportunities to engage with experts and expert practice beyond what is locally available. Recognizing that practitioner-students often are not involved in vital, active, engaged, professional communities outside their workplace, and that many faculty members in teaching universities are, likewise, not centrally involved in a larger research community, the chapter offers a view of social and technical networking tools that create participation structures to bridge these communities. The chapter illustrates these ideas by reference to two graduate blended programmes (combining online and face-to-face settings).}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/22467ef2c509b1f6fded3749f864fd3e6/xckuk}, keywords = {Higher_Education Tapped-In Social_Computing Blog Blended_Programme Wiki Web_2.0 Graduate_Education Chat Threaded_Discussion Professional_Education Podcasting} }