Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > Queen - heralded by international press? nope, sorry

forum rss feed
Author

death to ming! 23397 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 10 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Jul 05, 18:44 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



I might come across as being anal, but it's bugging me, so I'm going to go ahead and bring it up.

Arlene R. Weiss has posted a misleading "news" article on Queenzone's news section, saying that members of the international press are "heralding" Queen+PR's invitation to London's emergency service workers to the Hyde Park concert. She posted 7 links to news sites around the world to support her claim.

Well, sorry, that's not how it works.

You'll find that most of the links (except the BBC and Hello! Magazine) simply show the same story, or a slight variation thereof. Why? Because the story belongs to *ONE* source: American Press (also known as AP). That's how the news often works. News agencies like AP and Reuters will produce a story, and newspapers, web sites and so on will choose to carry a story. That's why you'll often find the same story, word for word, on several different newspapers around the world. Next time, see how many stories are attributed to "AP," "AFP," or "Reuters." It may surprised you.

So, it's not like reporters around the world decided to go through the trouble to write a story about Queen and their support. No, they simply saw the story on the wire, and decided to carry it, which is a *very* different situation from the one which Arlene described. If you can link me to several different EDITORIALS or independently written articles from around the world about the event, well, that's more deserving of Arlene's news headline.

By the way, just because the news editors decide to carry the story doesn't mean it's a sign of Queen being "heralded." No, it means that the London bombings are very topical, and anything related to it will get the readers' attention nowadays.

Why do I bring up this point? First, because I think we should have an accurate view of what Queen is and how the band is represented. After all, we don't want to hear or spread inaccuracies about our favourite band, do we? Yes, even if it's positive, an inaccuracy is an inaccuracy.

Second, I think we really need to raise awareness about media literacy. Let's try to have an understanding about how the media works.

That's all.



doremi user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 5193 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Jul 05, 19:53 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Yes, they all used the same wire service press releases or Queen's official press release, but let me tell you, newspapers and magazines are inundated every MINUTE, of every DAY, ...

...with press releases and wire service releases..which they decide are NOT newsworthy and they won't publish anything in their publication, to promote or give a sense of THEIR approval/validation that that news is ''fit'' or''newsworthy'' for their oh so great newspaper or magazine. For evry one press release or wire service release that comes into a publication within a 24 hour period that DOES get published, that the Editor DOES choose to publish and finds newsworthy,...

...dozens, even hundreds more wire service releases and press releases that come in in a 24 hour period get THROWN in the trash bin, 86ed, considered unfit and not newsworthy.

Only a HANDFUL of press releases or wire service releases are ever publsihed by any magazine or newspaper in a given 24 hour period.

So...since the press typically rags on Queen, and typically gets TONS of other press releases and wire service releases over the years on Queen...but these same publications STILL decide NOT to publish those other press releases and wire service releases...

..by this astonishing amount of worldwide newspapers, magazines, internet press sites,...all CHOOSING to publish this press release in their HOLY publications...

...that means they ARE pleased with what Queen is doing and Queen are deemed newsworthy and a good ''human interest/public service'' piece of note to their readers.

I also might note that this means this has generated immense good will for Queen in the International press's view, something Queen rarely gets.

.......As for the fact that the worldwide press is also jumping on something which YES is topical..related to the London bombings, so what...THAT is part of the point...Queen+Paul Rodgers are doing an act of good will with this issue that is at the peak of the public's eye.....

.....The same ''cynics'' siad the same thing about all of the artists that performed at Live 8 and Live Aid. So what? Live 8 and Live Aid still achieved their goal in helping Africa and 3rd world poverty, and saving lives from starvation and disease....while many music artists got and generated good publicity.

Queen+Paul Rodgers didn't HAVE to do this at all. Be glad they did, and if their careers benefit, works for me...cuz in the end..they still are doing a GOOD deed giving back to the emergency services personnel in London.

Also, everyone is quick to point out when the press either does NOT cover Queen, or when the press does, it's NEGATIVE.

So..as the saying goes...don't bite the hand (the press) that feeds you. Be GLAD so much of the press, CHOSE to publish this story and finds it a big and GOOD deal.


xyz
death to ming! 23397 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 10 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Jul 05, 06:42 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



News is a business. Readers = customers.

Editors choose to publish the article about Queen inviting emergency personnel (which is reported in a neutral way, by the way -- hardly gushing) because it's relevant to the London bombings, which is a high interest news item. It's no surprise that publications decided to carry the story.

Again, to imply that the "international" press "heralds" Queen is such an overblown statement. If you're in charge of Arts & Entertainment, it's a no-brainer to include an article that's connected to such a big story. I reiterate what I said in my previous post: a list of *editorials* from international sources that actually express a positive opinion would be something different. A list of websites that chose to run an AP story with neutral language, on the other hand, is NOT an indication of worldwide praise.

I guess I shouldn't have been surprised at how you interpreted this Queen-related item. After all, if Queen is mentioned in passing in a magazine, you announce in the news (!) section that Queen were "discussed."



wstüssyb user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 12371 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Jul 05, 11:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Dont you hate it when you make a new topic and only 2 people care =)


MY GOD spell it write.
Erin user not visiting Queenzone.com
Erin
Deity: 8445 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Jul 05, 12:33 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

wstüssyb wrote:

Dont you hate it when you make a new topic and only 2 people care =)


That's why I don't start a lot of topics!

kdj2hot user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 965 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Jul 05, 21:39 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

hope i dont come across as a dick and not really sure if you implied this, maybe i just didnt comprehend what you said, but AP doesnt stand for american press, it's associated press.

death to ming! 23397 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 10 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Jul 05, 11:30 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



kdj2hot, nope, you didn't come across as a dick at all, and you're totally right! Not sure why I typed that... maybe I was thinking about my own country's Canadian Press (CP) as I was writing my message.

Anyway, glad to see Arlene still thinks she should let everyone know whenever a newspaper carries the *same* Queen+PR Hyde Park story (she did it again with the Baltimore Sun), and also still doesn't know the meaning of the word "discuss" (hint: if a newspaper simply publishes an article that one of their reporters didn't even write, you cannot say that the newspaper "discussed" it).