Truth, lies, advertising, politics and newspapers

After two years in adland I still don't understand the divide between how we are seen and how other institutions are seen. The worst excesses of hard sell advertising pale into nothing compared to the amount of manipulative bullshit we are fed every day by so called respectable industries.

Particularly shocking is the current election coverage. Here are two examples to demonstrate:

1. Paper publishes online survey suggesting David Cameron won debate number 2. However it was revealed that the poll was opened when he started his opening speech, and closed when he finished it, before the debate even happened!

2. The Sun's own online survey (which requires registration) showed a 40% victory for Nick Clegg in last nights debate. Their headline is: Scrambled Clegg and Toast - but Cameron is full of beans. Ignoring their own polls when it contradicts what they want you to think.

How is it even legal for some papers to talk about the election? The Sun, Telegraph and The Times are Tory propaganda machines. The Mail is a slightly racist Tory propaganda machine. This is the kind of bias that would be slammed in an FMCG product ad, yet millions are allowed to be exposed to what is at best heavy bias, and at worst outright lies.

Lets look at The Daily Star who during the ash cloud fuss published a front page with a 747 jet with engines burning and "TERROR AS JET HITS ASH CLOUD". It turned out that this was a picture from a 20 year old film about what could happen.

From now on every page of The Sun should have a large disclaimer explaining how they are owned by Rupert Murdoch and nothing they say should be taken as fair. There is no parity, no fairness, no justification for government to say that advertising shouldn't be allowed to mislead people when it so blatantly happens every day in our newspapers.

The future of branding isn't advertising. It's buying newspapers and being allowed to print what the hell you like regardless of the truth or motives.

Why Newspapers Will Survive and Planning Will Change

Note: This is theory in progress, it may be flawed!!

People are still decrying the death of tv, the death of magazines, the death of newspapers. That they are history in our instant worlwide 247 internet world. But for the same reasons that social media is a pain, I expect that they will survive and that my job might change a lot as we go forward.

Here's why:

Now I can chat to everyone I have ever met. Hang on a minute, you were a tosser... I don't want to speak to you. Who is that? Social media burnout anyone (Marcus got there first btw)

I don't want everyone I know contacting me.

As I discussed at a social media panel a few months ago... the key word for the internet has become and will remain Filtration. Seperating the millions of pages of guff and giving us the bits we like. It's already taking over via feeds and selective grouping.

It's what we use search engines for. But increasingly we have to do it with our viewing of the sites we then find.

So.

Newspapers and magazines will survive because as well as liking tangible things, when there is too much data to read, we need filters. We need editing and selection. Print media can become these things.

I already do it, I read videogames blogs and news sites; but I trust Edge magazine to select the important bits and look at them critically. Just like I trust NME to do so with music.

Publications that become the critical filter instead of the news breaker might thrive.

So how does this change my job?

Well. Traditionally planning has involved lots of finding data, analysing it and interpreting it. Yet as we move onwards in web technology, we are finding more and more data from more and more sources. If this carries on then filtration of data will become a more prevalent part of our daily work. Web researching means its already easier for brands to commision research and provide more data.

Like I said, this is thought in progress. Feel free to shoot it down if you disagree.

The Swines!

While the whole world panics about Swine Flu, the media continues to relish the opportunity to have headlines like "KILLER FLU" "KILLER FOREIGN BUG HITS MIDDLE CLASSES" and "KILLER FLU STRIKES ON ANIVERSARY OF PRINCESS DIANA's CHICKEN POX SCARE" (guess which papers)

But this reminds me that despite the obvious danger this virus could pose, we should always be sure to look at things realistically to help us take precautions that actually help.

Which takes me to a great book I read recently by Ben Goldacre that uncovers all the bullshit and media panic behind health stories. He has appeared on Watchdog AND Charlie Brookers Newswipe... that alone makes it worth a view: Bad Science

To explain in a few words, here is a great pic from XKCD (via Layscience)

And they say advertising needs more regulation

Yet our media is currently revelling in supposed sympathy for Jade Goody, a woman whom they spent several years ripping to shreds as it suited them.

Frankly its disgusting. I can understand her wanting to give interviews to help other cancer sufferers and get money for her kids future. But every other magazine is plastering her everywhere.

Jade is the new Princess Di.

Its sad that this happens to people (a friend of mine is the same age and has cancer), but our media circus is full of absolute hypocrites.

Oh and for the benefit of a certain paper, there is a reason people like Jade were so ignorant. It's that vile hatred, bile and half facts like yours are allowed to be called news.