Dunkin’ Donuts pulled an advertisement featuring Rachel Ray this week when the scarf she was wearing caused a massive stir.
Critics complained that the black and white frayed scarf looked like a kaffiyeh, a traditional Arab headdress – which some say symbolizes Muslim extremism and terrorism, according to the Boston Globe.
Little Green Footballs was the first to claim that Dunkin’ Donuts was promoting terrorism:
I didn’t believe this story when people first started emailing about it; but sure enough, it’s true. Dunkin Donuts, the venerable old fried dough seller, is the latest American firm to casually promote the symbol of Palestinian terrorism and the intifada, the kaffiyeh, via Rachael Ray: Dunkin’ Breakfast Choices.
It was with some dismay that I learned last week that Dunkin’ Donuts spokeswoman Rachael Ray, the ubiquitous TV hostess, posed for one of the company’s ads in what appeared to be a black-and-white keffiyeh.
The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad. Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant (and not so ignorant) fashion designers, celebrities and left-wing icons.
Dunkin’ Donuts has decided to pull an Internet ad featuring the compulsively perky Rachel Ray because a handful of blithering idiots said they objected to a scarf she was wearing; that the scarf resembles a keffiyeh, a traditional headdress worn by Arab men that some associate with jihad. Where do I begin going into how utterly lame and stupid this is.
Do you think people are being too sensitive to Ray’s scarf?
In the world of Google News, newspapers and blogs are doing everything they can to increase their search engine rankings. Some newspapers are writing ‘search engine friendly’ headlines, while others are turning to SEM and SEO to increase their ranking.
The common goal? Appear towards the top of the page, get clicks, attract readers, and increase advertising.
Belgian French-language newspapers said Tuesday they want search engine Google to pay up to euro49 million ($77 million) in damages for publishing and storing their content without permission.
The newspaper copyright group Copiepresse said it had summoned Google to appear again before a Brussels court in September that will decide on their claim that they suffered damages of between euro32.8 million ($51.7 million) and euro49.2 million ($77.5 million)
Last year Google lost a lawsuit filed by the newspapers that forced it to remove headlines and links to news stories posted on its Google News service and stored in its search engine’s cache without the copyright owners’ permission.
Techdirt thinks “Google should counter that these newspapers owe them every damn cent of ad revenue that was generated by anyone clicking through from Google to those newspaper sites — plus an additional fee for being so kind as to “advertise” those newspapers websites to those who had never heard of them before.”
In a ‘did she really say that?’ moment over the weekend, FOX News correspondent Liz Trotta just about called for an assassination of presidential candidate Barack Obama.
While talking about the possibility of an assassination attempt, Trotta mixed up the names of Obama and Osama Bin Laden. “Osama, Obama — well, both (should be assassinated), if we could.” Then Trotta let out a big laugh.
After immense outrage around her comments, and shock that Trotta still has a job, Trotta apologized for her comments, saying that it was a lame attempt at humor.
Lame attempt at humor? Maybe. I’d consider it a huge lapse of judgment that is somehow, shockingly, going unpunished.
When Boston Globe sports columnist Bob Ryan once said on television that he’s like to slap the wife of New Jersey Nets guard Jason Kidd, he was suspended from the paper for 1 month. Now, how can Trotta escape her comments (joking or not) with just a short apology?
The Hampton bound aristocrats are in for a surprise when they reach into their bags for a beach read this weekend and turn to the cover story of the Sunday New York Times Magazine. You can hear them muttering “Who is Emily Gould?” over gin and tonics at the Maidstone Club already.
Emily Gould, Gawker’s former co-editor, graces the cover and details (in a painfully long-winded fashion) what she “gained and lost by writing about her intimate life online.”
The piece entitled “Exposed,” which went online on Thursday, has created an instant bloglash causing the Times Magazine editors to defend giving it the cover - before it even hits the front doors of homes across the country on Sunday.
“Putting Emily’s story on the cover was not a tough call. One of the things we are most interested in at the magazine are those lifestyle issues — what we call Way We Live Now issues — that blend personal narratives with larger political or ethical or philosophical concerns. These are the kinds of things readers are engaged by on Sunday morning (or anytime, in cyberspace). How the Internet is re-describing how we understand privacy, intimacy and personal history is, I think, such an issue, and the fact that the story — an 8,000-word story — has already, in 6 hours or so, attracted more than 600 comments (most of them having nothing to do with why we published the piece as a cover story) leads me to believe a lot of folks agree.”
Fair enough. Sounds like a digital age answer. As Ryan Tate of Gawker puns:
“That’s such a forward-thinking, blog-ish way to think. Gawker-esque, some might say.”
One problem though. If you’re admitting that the goal of the “thinking-piece” cover story is to create discourse in social circles both in the real world and online then why did they close the comments section on the story when it reached 727 and then suddenly re-open them a few hours later?
Second thoughts?
If you’re going to be bold and tab an Internet-memoir as your cover story, it’d probably be wise to fully embrace the public discourse (even if it’s overly negative) on your own site. As Tate also mentions, and the Times undoubtedly knows, the discourse will continue all over the blogosphere and through Twitter accounts, regardless of if they house it or not.
Maybe someone upstairs pointed out that discourse really is a good thing after they shut it down. 720 comments (no matter how negative), creates quite a few new pages - which the Times Co. can leverage advertisers on.
While the critics aren’t going to stop bickering about what a travesty it is that the editors gave her the front page of the New York Times Magazine to place the longest-blog-post-ever on, it’s a business after all and you might as well take advantage of it.
Today, the majority of that business and revenue is coming from the very thing the editors chose to spotlight in print for “everyone” to see – The Internet. That’s why it’s really on the cover after all, isn’t it?
Today, the first p2p network for scientists – ResearchGATE – was launched to give researchers a global web-based community to interact, collaborate on projects, and exchange resources and information.
This Web 2.0 community – labeled the Facebook for Scientists – allows scientists to create profiles similar to those found on Facebook. ResearchGATE members fill out an “about me” section to describe their research skills, submit their CV – Research Vitae, and list recommended scientific resources to connect with other members with similar scientific interests and projects.
One of the most significant aspects about this social network, which was created by researchers, for researchers, is that members can search for partners for research collaborations and grant applications. This search functionality is guaranteed to change the way researchers connect with one another, giving them the opportunity to identify the ideal person to work with on a collaborative project that they might have not found otherwise.
Providing researchers with free global access to one another, quickly and easily connecting some of the world’s brightest minds on collaborative projects could mean limitless possibilities for the scientific community – this is definitely a site to keep an eye on.
Help a reporter out (HARO) is the creation of Peter Shankman, a self-described CEO, entrepreneur, and adventurist. It’s a way for reporters and public relations people to work together, as reporters who are searching for experts on a particular subject can send Shankman their request, which he then emails to long list of subscribers. It’s a great tool that allows reporters and PR people to work together, and is a win-win situation for all.
However, over the past month there have been some issues with off topic pitching, where PR people have emailed reporters information that’s not specific enough, or at all close to their request. These off-topic pitches did not sit well with Shankman, and the first issue occurred on April 30:
Unfortunately, my quest to root out idiocy and heal the rift between PR people and journalists took a setback today, when one reporter who posted a query got three pitches that were so off-topic, and so not-even-remotely-close to what she wanted, that I had no choice but to ban them. It was such a no-brainer, it was sad.
I’m not going to out the agencies publicly. (Although I’m not ruling it out in the future…) But know that I’m serious about this, people. You screw up like that, and you’re history. Go pay the other service $6,500 a year and SPAM to your heart’s content.
Then, on the morning of May 13, it happened again. Shankman wasn’t sure quite how to deal with off-topic pitches, so he decided to leave it up to popular vote:
Last night, I sent out a query from Fortune Small Business. I made SURE to mention that I knew the reporter, and mentioned it would be helpful to be extra careful when pitching. You know, make sure you were on topic, and all that jazz.
Seven of you are not getting this email this morning.
Hopefully we’ll get it one day. Maybe. Until then, I’m beginning to think that simply kicking you off the list isn’t worth it.
Perhaps…Well, perhaps it comes down to publicly outing you?
Think about it this way: If you’re outed here, it might prevent you from winding up on the Bad Pitch Blog, or the PR Spammer’s Wiki, you know?
On May 15, we had a winner:
So here’s the deal… By a VERY small margin, “Just kick them off the list” beat “Out them publicly and kick them off the list.” So, I won’t out you publicly if a reporter emails me and tells me that you totally violated list rules and off-topic pitched.” The first time. But know that if you continue to do it, then it could happen.
So rather than risk it…Why not just pitch on-topic? Seriously.
The most interesting part of this is how close ‘outing them publicly’ came to winning the vote. A few reporters have recently begun to do this (see Chris Anderson, Gina Trapani), a method that has been met with some controversy and hard feelings.
Can you imagine living under a government that cares so little for your wellbeing that it deliberately fails to notify you of an impending natural disaster?
More than 100,000 people have died or gone missing at the hands of the cyclone that tore through Burma on May 2 – regulations and censorship boards created under the military dictatorship of Than Shwe ban free press, providing the Burmese people with no warning, and no forum to speak to the atrocities they have been facing.
The 30 Days for a Million Voices campaign has enlisted the help of celebrities to create poignant and thought-provoking video messages each day of the initiative, with the ultimate goal of raising money and awareness, bringing the truth about Burma to light.
A few of the startling facts I’ve learned from this campaign:
Political activist Aung San Suu Kyi – the world’s only imprisoned recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize -has been on house arrest for 12 years for fighting for human rights and democracy in Burma
3,200 villages in Burma have been destroyed under the illegal military regime
For public healthcare, Burma ranks 190th out of 191
For freedom of expression, Burma ranks 164th out of 168
W2 Group is working with Fanista to raise awareness and activism, through Racepoint Group’s media outreach and Digital Influence Group’s viral marketing campaign, which includes developing a Facebook application and social networking badges promoting burmaitcantwait.org. DIG will also be contributing $10 to the U.S. Campaign for Burma for every non-spam comment or trackback made to this post.
Make your voice heard in support of a country of people that have no voices. Find out how you can take action today.
Six searches are conducted via Google for every two on Yahoo and one on Microsoft Live. That’s not how Microsoft would like it. So the news from Microsoft last night (well, by British Summer Time anyway), CASHBACK!
Here’s how it’s worked so far. The search engines deliver paid-for results alongside so-called organic (not paid for) search results. When someone clicks on one of these paid-for results / aka “sponsored links” / aka “ads”, the search engine charges the advertiser. If these ads were served on an affiliate site, the affiliate site owner gets a share of that revenue.
So everyone is a winner. The search engine makes serious revenue (Google made $1.31 billion on revenues of $5.19 billion in the last quarter, the majority from search related ads), searchers see ads relevant to their search query, and the advertisers attract relevant visitors to their websites.
Now Microsoft wants more of those searchers using their Live service than Google, and what better way to achieve that than to make it worth their while. Microsoft has announced a scheme whereby advertisers will offer consumers who click their ads on Microsoft Live a discount, the value of this discount being passed to Microsoft which then passes it to the consumer. The advertisers can afford this as Microsoft won’t be charging them to advertise, but will charge them on purchase.
This achieves Microsoft’s stated intention to move beyond CPC (cost per click) advertising, and into CPA (cost per action or acquisition). Incurring an advertising cost only upon registering a sale has been considered by many to be a holy grail. The maxim “Only half of my advertising is effective, if only I knew which half” is crushed, and advertising becomes a fixed and known cost of sale.
This may work out to be the biggest “bung” in Web history, and it’s going to be a very interesting battle. On the basis that Google search is more relevant / more accurate (why else have they such a commanding lead?), I wonder whether searchers will continue to look for the best search results, or the best discount. Perhaps they will simply divide their searches up into non-remunerative (Google) and remunerative (Live)?
Anderson Discusses Wired’s New Social Networking Site (Kind Of) and Then Tries to Defends His Practice of Banning PR People
By George
Chris Anderson, the editor of Wired, was the keynote speaker at the Media Bistro Circus in New York City yesterday.Anderson was supposed to announce a new social networking project being sponsored by the magazine, but the deal isn’t completed so his lawyers ordered him not to talk directly about it.
But he did give the audience of mostly journalists some hints.He said social networking isn’t a “destination” site in and of itself (like Facebook and MySpace), but should be part of any thriving online community.He said social networks need to be less about “friending” and more about everyone having an identity.
“MySpace and Facebook aren’t about anything except themselves,” Anderson said.“They are generic sites.That’s why they have proven to be difficult to monetize.”
He predicted that micro-social networks – those networks that target extremely specific topics – would be the winners.He said social networks need a laser-focus because “they need to be about something.”
“If you get the right ad with the right content, the ad feels like part of the content,” he said.
It should be interesting to learn in the next few days what Wired has up its sleeve.Anderson runs a social networking site on robotic airplanes (known as unmanned aerial vehicles) called DIY Drones.The site is dedicated to “amateur UAVs, contests, resources, and more.”
Anderson, who moderates the site, explained his methods for thwarting bad behavior on the site (which he said fell into two categories: profanity and personal attacks).
First offense, Anderson said he left polite public comments under a violator’s post explaining the rules.Second offense, Anderson set them a private message and pointed them to the section of the DIY Drones site explaining the rules of the site.Third offense, he would ban them – but privately because he didn’t want to embarrass them in public. Why?
He said it was important for social networks to be civil and to “just be nice” to people — even those using bad behavior.
I was in the front row of the audience and during the Q&A, I challenged Anderson on his civility comments and how he reconciled his kindness mantra on the DIY Drone site against his very public banning of PR people on his Wired blog – where he blocked PR people from his email account and then publicly reprimanded them (calling them lazy flacks) by publishing their email addresses.
“I was waiting for this question,” he said. “”I would do it again in a second (ban the PR people).I did this after years of abuse.”
By “abuse,” I think he meant PR people sending him emails. And then he made the rather startling statement: “We will publicly execute people if we need to.”
Now Anderson wasn’t being literal – he meant that some people displaying bad behavior deserve to be punished and/or banned from sites — even publicly. It was an odd answer after his rant on being civil and nice.It certainly leaves Anderson wide open for being called a hypocrite.
It seemed to me that Anderson advocated being civil and polite – but only if he wasn’t personally involved. Do as I say not as a do? For example, why didn’t he just block the PR people and send them private messages as to why?Did he really need to be so publicly vindictive?
Because I agree with what he said at Media Bistro.We could all be more civil and nice.Too bad that, in this instance, Anderson didn’t follow his own advice.
