Monday, March 30, 2009

Defeating the object?

The following is taken from today's CMU Daily, recommended reading, sign up at I post it here because I'd originally predicted (here) that if I don't have the time to update my own blog on a regular basis how do we expect celebs to do so......

Shocking revelation this: 50 Cent doesn't do his own Twitter updates. They are written by his internet business manager Chris Romero. Romero told The New York Times he takes quotes from interviews Fiddy has given and uses them for the site, and seems to think that it's all okay. "He doesn't actually use Twitter", he's quoted as saying. "But the energy of it is all him". Well I, for one, am shocked, saddened and disappointed. And I'll be telling my PA to add an update to my Twitter page to that effect forthwith.

It was only a matter of time, I just didn't expect it to be such a short space of time before someone got 'found out'. I suppose we now have to wonder how much it matters. I think, at the moment, it does.

Friday, March 27, 2009

Headline of the year?

I'm always on the lookout for bizarre headlines, even when they're not linked to fabulous stories. This one covers all bases including the obsession with google-earth, google-streetmapview360, googletoiletcamview or whatever.

Schoolyard penis seen from space

Taking an infantile game to a whole new level. A similar story, but inferior headline, lurks here

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Sorry seems to be the easiest word

To work in broadcasting at the moment is to be in a perpetual state of apology. I'm even apologetic about being remotely associated with broadcasting. Look, I'm sorry.

Of late all broadcasters have made a 'show' of signing up to a 'commitment to honesty in broadcasting'. Morally we know that there's an element of PR involved in this but as a guiding principle it has significant merit.

This said can we really be claiming that we're honest in our apologies?

Broadcasters and their management may regret the offence they've caused but is it really honest to apologise for something you know wasn't really offensive? Something that only caused offense when it was appropriated by other media and shown out of context to those with very low tolerance thresholds. These people don't normally consume your output and you wouldn't really want them as listeners/viewers anyway. Do we honestly have to apologise to them?

I'm already sorry, OK?

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Edited highlights

Sometimes it's hard to keep up with multiple blogs and I've given up archiving the mercury blog here.

However, it may be worth putting the outtakes in this space, so from this blog, I couldn't find a way to shoehorn this bit in - because I thought I'd already covered the territory.

It refers to U2's high-profile of late and the evolution of the music industry. Older acts are back out hawking their wares, but what space does it leave for those trying to break thru? Do we still need the older acts to finance the newer ones? The answer is 'probably'. Here's the out-take:

The fact is that all acts have to work harder these days because they're becoming less relevant to our lives, we have so many more choices of what to do with our leisure time from DVD box sets to Twittering. In some cases the audience has moved on, got older, doesn't listen to as much music (tragic, I know) and certainly doesn't buy as much. U2's biggest album The Joshua Tree achieved over 25 million sales, 'No Line' will be lucky to do a quarter of that. Coldplay's Viva La Vida, last year's biggest-seller, is currently around 7 million worldwide sales. The work that U2 put in now may not alter that but it certainly buys the media's affection for a while.

It's not like a DVD extra but maybe it is. Or not.