Wednesday, 13 March 2013
Mantungwa Ndlangamandla’s ‘Pastor Banda’
Mantungwa Ndlangamandla’s (an old student of ours) ‘Pastor Banda’ will broadcast on Mzanzi Magic at 21h00 tonight.
Monday, 11 March 2013
South Africa announces the Best Liked Ads of 2012
Millward Brown's Best Liked Ads list celebrates the countries favourite TV commercials and their advertising agencies in South Africa. These are the ads that have been rated as the 'most liked' by the South African audience, whom we believe to be the most important critics. There are lots of awards out there, but this one is chosen by the consumer - the person who ultimately chooses to buy your brand or not.
 |
| Rank | Advert | Agency |
| 1 | Spur - 'Sign Writing' | Haas Advertising |
| 2 | Wimpy - 'Missing Lunch' | Draftfcb |
| 3 | Vaseline Total Moisture Body Lotion - '3 Layers' | The Hardy Boys |
| 4 | Volvo S60 T3 - 'Wolf' | The Arnold Team, Boston |
| 5 | Samsung Galaxy Note 2 - 'Creativity' | Cheil USA |
| 6 | MTN - 'Lullaby' | Metropolitan Republic & Jupiter Drawing Room (South Africa) Johannesburg |
| 7 | Nando's - 'Reason 2 (Anthem)' | Black River FC |
| 8 | Debonairs Pizza - 'Master Piece' | Morris Jones |
| 9 | Romans Pizza - 'School Kids with Barry Hilton' | Blue Planet |
| 10 | Pantene Pro V - 'Mends Instantly with Liv Tyler' | Grey |
| 11 | Bells Whisky - 'The Search' | King James |
| 12 | Samsung Galaxy Notebook - 'New Way' | Cheil USA |
| 13 | Nando's - 'Reason 15 (Fire)' | Black River FC |
| 14 | South African Reserve Bank - 'New Bank Notes (Nelson Mandela)' | The Jupiter Drawing Room (South Africa) Johannesburg |
| 15 | Johnsons African Nurture Products - 'Beauty Secret' | 140 BBDO |
| 16 | BMW - 'Connected Drive E-mails' | Kirschenbaum, Bond, Senecal & Partners |
| 17 | Lexus RX 300 - 'Amazing' | Draftfcb |
| 18 | Castle Lite - 'New Cold Rush' | The Jupiter Drawing Room (South Africa) Johannesburg |
| 19 | Nando's - 'Reason 24 (Close to Europe)' | Black River FC |
| 20 | Wimpy - 'Grand Grillster' | Draftfcb |
 |
Could the huge increase in the number of QSR ads on the list be a sign of the times? The economic environment is still quite tight post the 2009 recession, and consumers are searching for small, affordable treats for their families - relevance is therefore key in engaging the South African public and some categories are more relevant than others.
Regardless of the category, some of the key ingredients in great advertising that we see are humour, kids, animals and celebrities. Of all the QSR ads on the list, humour is the common thread - something that the South African market tends to resonate with quite strongly. TV ads are increasingly seen as 'entertainment' and if you can make us smile or laugh, you are entertaining us. And if you entertain us with a brand that is very relevant, you may just have a winning combination...
 |
Friday, 8 March 2013
Now on YouTube: Media Career Guide episode with Bizcommunity
She also provides useful tips on how both job seekers and recruiters can use Bizcommunity's popular jobs and CV sections to find and fill ideal positions and educate themselves.
This episode was part of the third season of the Media Career Guide Show, brought to you by the Gauteng Film Commission, and produced by Seventeen Eight Media (www.seventeeneightmedia.com), a black-owned production house specialising in advertiser-funded programmes for TV and blue-chip clients.
Currently being repeated
The 26-part show, which is currently being repeated on SABC1, had new features requested directly by viewers, aimed at helping them to get more information about careers in film, television, music, advertising, print; digital media, and marketing and promotions. It was presented by new host Mpho Putini (@mphoputini), who is also a drive-time presenter on Jozi FM.
Tuesday, 5 March 2013
Sandton BMH: Modern Culture Full-time Class test
The Modern Culture Full-time Class test for the Sandton Boston Media House will be written during your class time on the 18th and 19th of March. You need to study Units 1-4.
Monday, 4 March 2013
News credibility is king in our twittering world
Franz Kruger writes for the Mail & Guardian:
In anybody's terms, the Valentine's Day shooting of the model Reeva Steenkamp by her Paralympian star boyfriend was a sensational event. It drew unprecedented local and international attention, and will continue to do so as the judicial process unfolds.
There was immediate blanket coverage, which included information on the kind of evidence the police were believed to have uncovered. The Sunday papers went particularly far in this direction, reflecting the police case that he had murdered his girlfriend. In one paper, there was a kind of cartoon strip that showed what might have happened.
As the bail hearing unfolded afterwards, it became clear that these accounts were open to challenge. Some details, such as the existence of a bloody cricket bat, proved to be pure fiction, as Pistorius's defence sought to create doubt about the state's case.
At the very least, the bail hearing must have been almost as embarrassing to some newspapers as it was to the hapless investigating officer whose testimony was dismantled in court. Of course, the trial has not begun properly, and the evidence from both sides will be subjected to much closer scrutiny.
The coverage has led to a debate about the limits of court reporting. The sub-judice rule is designed to prevent issues before court being prejudged and to forestall undue influence over a court case. What this means in practice, however, has been unclear for some time.
Relaxed approach
In its strict application, the rule meant that only material actually presented in court could be reported and no opinion on the strength of a case or a likely outcome was permissible. As the media lawyers Dario Milo and Avani Singh have pointed out, a 2007 ruling in the Supreme Court of Appeal has loosened the reins somewhat. Although it accepted that publicity can harm the administration of justice, the court said damage needed to be clear and demonstrable before the media's freedom to report could be limited.
The ruling gave official approval to the more relaxed approach that has become standard practice, although it does not help a great deal in determining what exactly constitutes clear harm.
The relaxation of these rules is welcome, because it established that the courts cannot exist in a sanitised bubble of their own making. Immunity from public discussion cannot be achieved and is not desirable. But this does not mean there should be no limits. I was uncomfortable about some of the initial Pistorius coverage in that it encouraged a view that the matter was clear and his guilt established. This is a problem because it is unfair to the accused and because it may undermine public confidence in the court's final decision.
Much has been made of the fact that we do not have a jury system and so the danger of improperly influencing the court case is much diminished. This is, of course, valid and sets the South African situation apart from that in Britain and elsewhere. But it does not deal with the other two concerns.
It is more often the way information is presented than the detail itself that can cause a problem. By all means, report on the alleged cricket bat – but maybe it should be presented a little more cautiously, making it clear that various explanations and additional facts may yet change the picture.
It is true that the rise of social media has changed the landscape. They provide a new platform for valuable insights and new facts – mixed in with rumour, speculation and half-baked opinion. It seems to me that the implication of this development is not that journalists should publish everything "because it's out there anyway" but that they should hold on to a key advantage they have: the claim to trustworthiness based on thorough research and balanced presentation.
Spin doctors
A more careful approach also provides some defence against the dangers of being manipulated by spin doctors. Already, the coverage shows the signs of opposing PR strategies at work, with stories of "prayers for Oscar" competing with claims of past violence on the front pages of various newspapers. It seems that the motto of the day is "No front page without Oscar", which leaves a great deal of space for spin to be presented as news.
Let's all take a deep breath and calm down. This story will be with us for a long time and we should cover it in a way that ensures that our credibility with readers stays with us too.
The headline on last week's front-page lead story in the Mail & Guardian was one of those that can irritate readers. The story quoted several sources saying that a group of ANC lobbyists based in KwaZulu-Natal was working to prevent the party's deputy president, Cyril Ramaphosa, from assuming the party's top position after Jacob Zuma steps down.
The headline declared "Why Cyril won't be king", assuming, very smoothly and without a shade of evidence, that this group's aim will be achieved. It is always fun to predict the political future but it's an uncertain business. There will be other factions with different ideas – and a hundred things may happen to stymie this goal.
But the M&G confidently predicted how it will turn out. It's like talking to eight (or more) Democratic Alliance sources who say they are working to capture Gauteng from the ANC, then writing as fact that they will do so, with the headline: "DA to capture Gauteng".
Maybe the paper's crystal ball needs to be sent in for repairs.
This article appeared on the Mail & Guardian website
In anybody's terms, the Valentine's Day shooting of the model Reeva Steenkamp by her Paralympian star boyfriend was a sensational event. It drew unprecedented local and international attention, and will continue to do so as the judicial process unfolds.
There was immediate blanket coverage, which included information on the kind of evidence the police were believed to have uncovered. The Sunday papers went particularly far in this direction, reflecting the police case that he had murdered his girlfriend. In one paper, there was a kind of cartoon strip that showed what might have happened.
As the bail hearing unfolded afterwards, it became clear that these accounts were open to challenge. Some details, such as the existence of a bloody cricket bat, proved to be pure fiction, as Pistorius's defence sought to create doubt about the state's case.
At the very least, the bail hearing must have been almost as embarrassing to some newspapers as it was to the hapless investigating officer whose testimony was dismantled in court. Of course, the trial has not begun properly, and the evidence from both sides will be subjected to much closer scrutiny.
The coverage has led to a debate about the limits of court reporting. The sub-judice rule is designed to prevent issues before court being prejudged and to forestall undue influence over a court case. What this means in practice, however, has been unclear for some time.
Relaxed approach
In its strict application, the rule meant that only material actually presented in court could be reported and no opinion on the strength of a case or a likely outcome was permissible. As the media lawyers Dario Milo and Avani Singh have pointed out, a 2007 ruling in the Supreme Court of Appeal has loosened the reins somewhat. Although it accepted that publicity can harm the administration of justice, the court said damage needed to be clear and demonstrable before the media's freedom to report could be limited.
The ruling gave official approval to the more relaxed approach that has become standard practice, although it does not help a great deal in determining what exactly constitutes clear harm.
The relaxation of these rules is welcome, because it established that the courts cannot exist in a sanitised bubble of their own making. Immunity from public discussion cannot be achieved and is not desirable. But this does not mean there should be no limits. I was uncomfortable about some of the initial Pistorius coverage in that it encouraged a view that the matter was clear and his guilt established. This is a problem because it is unfair to the accused and because it may undermine public confidence in the court's final decision.
Much has been made of the fact that we do not have a jury system and so the danger of improperly influencing the court case is much diminished. This is, of course, valid and sets the South African situation apart from that in Britain and elsewhere. But it does not deal with the other two concerns.
It is more often the way information is presented than the detail itself that can cause a problem. By all means, report on the alleged cricket bat – but maybe it should be presented a little more cautiously, making it clear that various explanations and additional facts may yet change the picture.
It is true that the rise of social media has changed the landscape. They provide a new platform for valuable insights and new facts – mixed in with rumour, speculation and half-baked opinion. It seems to me that the implication of this development is not that journalists should publish everything "because it's out there anyway" but that they should hold on to a key advantage they have: the claim to trustworthiness based on thorough research and balanced presentation.
Spin doctors
A more careful approach also provides some defence against the dangers of being manipulated by spin doctors. Already, the coverage shows the signs of opposing PR strategies at work, with stories of "prayers for Oscar" competing with claims of past violence on the front pages of various newspapers. It seems that the motto of the day is "No front page without Oscar", which leaves a great deal of space for spin to be presented as news.
Let's all take a deep breath and calm down. This story will be with us for a long time and we should cover it in a way that ensures that our credibility with readers stays with us too.
The headline on last week's front-page lead story in the Mail & Guardian was one of those that can irritate readers. The story quoted several sources saying that a group of ANC lobbyists based in KwaZulu-Natal was working to prevent the party's deputy president, Cyril Ramaphosa, from assuming the party's top position after Jacob Zuma steps down.
The headline declared "Why Cyril won't be king", assuming, very smoothly and without a shade of evidence, that this group's aim will be achieved. It is always fun to predict the political future but it's an uncertain business. There will be other factions with different ideas – and a hundred things may happen to stymie this goal.
But the M&G confidently predicted how it will turn out. It's like talking to eight (or more) Democratic Alliance sources who say they are working to capture Gauteng from the ANC, then writing as fact that they will do so, with the headline: "DA to capture Gauteng".
Maybe the paper's crystal ball needs to be sent in for repairs.
This article appeared on the Mail & Guardian website
Tuesday, 26 February 2013
Media Law Class test 1 - Sandton Boston Media House
Media Law Class test 1
Date: 11 March 2013
Scope: pages 1 – 69
Marks: 35
Duration: 45 min
Time: 15h00 (ALL STUDENTS), Venue: room 8, 10 and 11.
No 11h30 class that day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)