《君子雜誌中國版》職員稱雜誌社收費發文軟推音響廠牌Bang & Olufsen。

「你想多上新聞增加曝光呀，那好辦。」

張大衛發自上海

中國政府對政治新聞的敏感審查惡名昭彰，但他們卻很樂意讓紙電傳媒吹捧各大外企。當然，這是因為出得起價。

想讓《君子雜誌中國版》給你們公司老總作個專訪？雜誌廣告部會報價一頁紙兩萬美金。該雜誌其實是由《君子雜誌》母公司美國赫斯特國際集團在中國版權合作所開設。

公司老闆想上國營中央電視臺的新聞節目該怎樣？據某專門安排此類出鏡的人士透露，每分鐘付四千美金就成。

那在中共宣傳工具《工人日報》上發篇軟文呢？報紙的廣告代理直說是每字一美金左右。

雖說中國法規明禁此類軟性廣告新聞，但業內卻無人不曉此潛規則。不少紙電傳媒甚至已備價目單為待賣新聞明碼標之。

The New York Times: In China Press, Best Coverage Cash Can Buy

By DAVID BARBOZA

SHANGHAI — China is notorious for censoring politically delicate news coverage. But it is more than willing to let flattering news about Western and Asian businesses appear in print and broadcast media — if the price is right.

Want a profile of your chief executive to appear in the Chinese version of Esquire? That will be about $20,000 a page, according to the advertising department of the magazine, which has a licensing agreement with the Hearst Corporation in the United States.

Need to get your top executive on a news program by state-run China Central Television? Pay $4,000 a minute, says a network consultant who arranges such appearances.

A flattering article about your company in Workers’ Daily, the Communist Party’s propaganda newspaper? About $1 per Chinese character, the paper’s advertising agent said.

Though Chinese laws and regulations ban paid promotional material that is not labeled as such, the practice is so widespread that many publications and broadcasters even have rate cards listing news-for-sale prices.

And while Western companies and many Chinese journalists are loath to discuss the subject, public relations and advertising firms are sometimes surprisingly candid about their roles as brokers in buying flattering coverage, referred to here as “soft news” or “paid news.”

Ogilvy & Mather, one of the world’s biggest public relations and advertising agencies, acknowledged that it pays Chinese media outlets for client coverage in some categories.

“Our policy is to advise our clients to not participate in such activities,” the agency’s Beijing office wrote in an e-mail, in response to a reporter’s questions. “However, in some industries, such as luxury, the practice of soft news placements is very common so this is something that we have also done before.”

A Chinese account manager for another American public relations firm was strikingly frank about paying for coverage, although she spoke only on condition of anonymity to avoid riling her industry colleagues and her employer.

“If you want more media coverage, that’s easy to do — we have plenty of channels to get your company shown on television, and in top magazines and newspapers,” she said in a telephone interview.

Media specialists, and Chinese journalists intent on playing by ethical rules, deplore the paid placements they say are all too common in the nation’s media.

“Corruption has become a lifestyle in today’s China,” said Sun Xupei, a journalism fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing. “But when it happens in journalism it’s even worse than other fields, because people feel there’s nothing they can really trust.”

Executives at the Chinese language version of Esquire magazine say they regularly publish soft news features that are essentially ads masquerading as news.

One example was a feature about a European audio company, Bang & Olufsen, that supplies equipment to Audi, the automaker. Nothing in the magazine indicated that the Chinese Esquire had been paid to run it.

But the magazine received at least $10,000 a page for the five-page feature, according to the publication’s executives, who e-mailed images of it as an example of the paid genre. They, and others who helped produce the article, said Audi was involved in the payment. A spokesman in China for Audi declined to comment. Cheryl Sim, a Bang & Olufsen spokeswoman in the company’s Singapore office, said it was not the company’s practice to pay for news coverage. “We certainly did not pay in this Esquire case,” she said. “But we’ll look into the matter.” The Hearst Corporation declined to comment.

Not all business and company profiles in Chinese media are planted and paid for, of course. But even when they are not, Chinese media organizations often have much laxer rules than many mainstream Western journalists for accepting payments from sources for news coverage.

The highly regarded Chinese newspaper, 21st Century Business Herald, which is better known for its investigative reporting, recently ran an interview with Christophe Navarre, chief executive of the French wine and spirits maker Moët Hennessy.

The article appeared after the company, with the help of Ruder Finn, an American public relations firm, agreed to pay the airfare, lodging and food costs for nine journalists, including one from the 21st Century paper, to visit Moët Hennessy’s chateau in western China. Of the media organizations that rode along, only the international news agency Reuters paid its own travel and other costs, Ruder Finn said.

Moët Hennessy and Ruder Finn, however, insist they did not make any other payments to entice coverage. “Although we know it’s a normal practice in China, we never pay the media,” said Jean-Michel Dumont, chairman of Ruder Finn Asia.

China is not alone in bending boundaries. Media outlets in Europe, Japan, the Philippines, Latin America and even the United States may venture into various gray areas, encouraging companies to pay for journalists’ travel or underwriting favorable reporting or agreeing to take out advertising packages in exchange for coverage. (Mainstream American journalism ethics, including the ground rules of The New York Times, prohibit such practices.)

But media specialists say nowhere are such quid pro quos as common and as aggressively pursued as in China — to the frustration of Chinese business executives.

“If one of my companies came up with a cure for cancer, I still couldn’t get any journalists to come to the press conference without promising them a huge envelope filled with cash,” said one Shanghai-based private equity investor, insisting that he not to be named because he feared journalists would boycott covering his companies altogether.

Six big American companies that operate in China, including Ford and General Motors, declined to comment for this article about the Chinese practice of paying for coverage. So did the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai, which represents many of the biggest United States companies operating in China. None of the six companies have been accused of making the payments.

If American multinationals made off-the-books payments directly to Chinese reporters, editors or producers, rather than simply buying space or air time through media agencies, the American companies could be at risk of violating the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The law prohibits people working for American companies that operate abroad from paying bribes or making corrupt payments to foreign officials to obtain or keep business or obtain other business advantages.

It is unclear whether any Americans have been prosecuted on suspicion of paying journalists in China or elsewhere.

“Journalists are considered government officials because generally all the press is government-controlled in China,” said Lesli Ligorner, a Shanghai-based lawyer at Simmons & Simmons, an international law firm. “So making an illicit payment to a journalist would be an F.C.P.A. violation.”

Such payments also violate Chinese law. China’s propaganda authorities prohibit news outlets and journalists from accepting payments to cover news conferences or to publish news. Accepting secret payments can also be prosecuted under the nation’s laws against bribery, and some cases have been. Convictions can result in prison sentences.

But so much money is sloshing around, analysts say, that enforcement is rare in China. Instead, the government occasionally issues general warnings, which go widely ignored.

Newspaper and magazine advertising departments continue to openly discuss their rates — even when a researcher making inquiries identifies herself as working for The New York Times.

“If your company’s boss wants to be shown twice, in an audience seat, for a total of five seconds, the average price is $5,000 on some popular news programs,” said Wang Limin, an account manager at Yashi Media, a Beijing agency that helps companies obtain coverage in print and broadcast media.

“If your boss wants to comment on something brief and we shoot him in a news program for 15 seconds, it would be $9,000. And if your boss wants an exclusive interview for 10 minutes, the rate is much higher.”

Gu Huini and Xu Yan contributed research.

=== All Rights Reserved. © 2012 The New York Times Company ===

The post 在中國，絕佳報導花錢就能買到 appeared first on PRINCE AWFUL's.

《新聞週刊》的危機預示一個時代正漸漸遠離
As Newsweek Goes on Block, An Era Fades

By STEPHANIE CLIFFORD

《時代週刊》與《新聞週刊》一直爭作時事風向標。盡管爭鬥仍在繼續，《新聞週刊》卻首先自身難保了。
Time and Newsweek once competed to lead the national conversation. Though it is still popular, Newsweek is no longer profitable.

每週一的報攤上，《時代週刊》與《新聞週刊》都會以封面文章來爭領時事焦點。這種情形已延續了一代又一代。在互聯網出現之前，或是電視新聞出現之前，甚至人物雜誌出現之前，時事週刊的封面新聞通常倍受眾人關注。
For generations, Time and Newsweek fought to define the national news agenda every Monday on the newsstand. Before the Internet, before cable news, before People magazine, what the newsweeklies put on their covers mattered.

隨著美國的大眾話題越來越難簡單地用一張封面來概括，時事週刊的時代就要一去不復返。華盛頓郵報公司於週三宣佈將售出旗下《新聞週刊》。這家七十七年老牌時事週刊的前途不免令人甚為憂心。
As the American conversation has become harder to sum up in a single cover, that era seems to be ending. The Washington Post Company announced Wednesday that it would sell Newsweek, raising questions about the future of the newsweekly, first published 77 years ago.

華盛頓郵報公司主席兼行政總裁關易東在訪問中表示，此舉實屬財政上逼於無奈。
Donald E. Graham, chairman and chief executive of the Washington Post Company, said in an interview that the decision was purely economic.

他坦言，「我並不想這麼幹，可在生意上你得作決策。」他也講到週刊在零一年度必然虧損，因為「我們實在找不到可行的方法讓《新聞週刊》盈利。」
“I did not want to do this, but it is a business,” he said. The magazine would lose money in 2010, he said, and “we don’t see a sustained path to profitability for Newsweek.”

不少公司亦在危機中棄置或革新那些大眾雜誌。《電視指南》就以一美金之價售予了一間私人企業；而《商業週刊》則以五百萬現金被彭博公司購入；《讀者文摘》也因發行量慘淡不得不重組團隊。
The move comes as companies have been sloughing off and revamping other mass magazines. TV Guide was sold for $1 to a private equity firm; Businessweek was sold for $5 million in cash to Bloomberg L.P.; and Reader’s Digest was given an editorial overhaul as it slashed circulation.

英文原作詳見《紐約時報》官方網站：
Newsweek Is for Sale as Newsweeklies Lose Influence

原文原圖版權皆歸紐約時報公司所有。

The post 《新聞週刊》無奈待賣　週刊新聞風光不再 appeared first on PRINCE AWFUL's.

成於第一夫人剪裁，敗於茫茫商場求財
Dressing Mrs. Obama for Success, Then Going Out of Business

By SUSAN SAULNY

蜜雪兒奧巴馬前御用設計師皮瑪麗開口釋其店舖緣何匆匆結業。
The designer Maria Pinto, whose creations were worn by Michelle Obama, opened up about why she abruptly closed.

自芝加哥報導－時裝與政治皆是換季不斷又捉摸不透。而蜜雪兒奧巴馬與本地設計師皮瑪麗的合作將相似的兩者巧妙交融。蜜雪兒那些令人記憶猶新的全國公開亮相便都身著皮瑪麗的作品。
CHICAGO — Fashion and politics are seasonal and unpredictable, yet the two came together quite well here for the hometown designer Maria Pinto and Michelle Obama, whose first memorable bursts onto the national scene were often in Pinto creations.

還記得第一夫人在世界巡演第一晚所穿的那件貼身紫衣麼？或是在民主黨全國大會上的那襲天藍連衣裙？又或前往白宮會見小布殊一家時的那套紅禮服？皮瑪麗一手包辦設計了在這漫漫競選路上一個女人的形象自誕生、成長直到冉冉昇起。
Remember the purple sheath Mrs. Obama wore the night of the fist bump heard round the world? The teal number at the Democratic National Convention? Or the red dress she wore to meet the Bushes on their way out of the White House? Maria Pinto all, designed right here where both women were born and raised and, over the course of one remarkable election, became stars.

自然，當皮女士在其西環精品店櫥窗貼出「清倉甩賣」告示並宣布其芝加哥時裝店關張之際，無數擁躉對此表示難以置信。這間縫紉店之翹楚到底怎麼了？「我已經盡力了。」皮女士在二月中旗下店舖結業之後的首次正式採訪中講到。
So when Ms. Pinto abruptly put up a “closeout sale” sign in the window of her West Loop boutique and announced that she was folding her fashion business, Chicago — and Pinto devotees all over — reacted with disbelief: What in sartorial heaven happened? “I pushed as far as I could,” Ms. Pinto, 53, said in her first lengthy interview since the demise of her store and wholesale operations in mid-February.

英文原作詳見《紐約時報》官方網站：
Dressing Mrs. Obama for Success, Then Going Out of Business

原文原圖版權皆歸紐約時報公司所有。

The post 高山流水得知音，曲高和寡終落寞 appeared first on PRINCE AWFUL's.

經互聯網而來的公民意識
Civics, Via the Internet
在紐澤西州，數以千計的高中學生遊行抗議教育津貼縮減。這場州內近年來最大規模之一的示威活動，源起於面書上的一個頁面。
Thousands of high school students in New Jersey walked out to protest cuts in education aid. The demonstration, inspired by a Facebook page, was one of the state’s largest in years.

在紐澤西州，學生們抗議學校預算縮減
Students Protest School Budget Cuts in New Jersey

由面書訊息召集而來的學生們協力反對學校預算縮減
Students, Inspired by a Facebook Message, Rally Against School Budget Cuts
By WINNIE HU

這不過是一次默默的請求：一條極易被忽視的訊息在號召紐澤西州的學生們起來反對預算縮減，因為這會影響到班級的規模和選擇，以及課餘的活動。但是，卻有差不多一萬八千名學生接受了上月在面書上發起的該請求。社交網站面書一直以發佈聚會和體育賽事聞名。就在週二，許多此類網上支持者以及其他各界人士走出教室參與了這場近年來紐澤西州最大規模之一的草根示威活動。
It was a silent call to arms: an easy-to-overlook message urging New Jersey students to take a stand against the budget cuts that threaten class sizes and choices as well as after-school activities. But some 18,000 students accepted the invitation posted last month on Facebook, the social media site better known for publicizing parties and sporting events. And on Tuesday many of them — and many others — walked out of class in one of the largest grass-roots demonstrations to hit New Jersey in years.

英文原作詳見《紐約時報》官方網站：
In New Jersey, a Civics Lesson in the Internet Age

原文原圖版權皆歸紐約時報公司所有。

The post 紐澤西州的網路時代公民課 appeared first on PRINCE AWFUL's.

鱈魚角計畫乃美國風能業邁進之關鍵
Cape Cod Project Is Crucial Step for U.S. Wind Industry

鱈魚角計畫預示著美國風能業之未來
Cape Cod Project Could Foretell Future Of U.S. Wind Industry
By TOM ZELLER Jr.

已有愈八百架巨型風力電機分立於丹麥、英國及歐洲另七國的海岸邊。其憑藉烈烈海風生產了足夠的電力可供給數百戶人家使用。與此同時，中國首間離岸風力電廠下月開工在即。這項總功率達一百零二百萬瓦的大手筆座落於上海附近，而更多新廠亦在其規劃之中。
More than 800 giant wind turbines spin off the coasts of Denmark, Britain and seven other European countries, generating enough electricity from strong ocean breezes to power hundreds of housands of homes. China’s first offshore wind farm, a 102-megawatt venture near Shanghai, goes online this month, with more in the pipeline.

而美國呢，雖說近十年來不斷努力，至今仍未有任何離岸的風力電機立起。
But despite a decade of efforts, not a single offshore turbine has been built in the United States.

英文原作詳見《紐約時報》官方網站：
Cape Cod Project Is Crucial Step for U.S. Wind Industry

原文原圖版權皆歸紐約時報公司所有。

The post 從海風中獲得能量 appeared first on PRINCE AWFUL's.

亞桑州施重法治移民
ARIZONA ENACTS STRINGENT LAW ON IMMIGRATION

By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD

紛爭再起
A DEBATE FLARES ANEW
非公民需持證－州警察有擴權
Noncitizens Must Carry Papers – Police Get Broad Powers

自鳳凰城報導－亞利桑那州州長布維珍在週五將全國最嚴格的非法移民法案簽進了正式法律條文。該法旨在確認、起訴並驅逐非法移民。
PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the nation’s toughest bill on illegal immigration into law on Friday. Its aim is to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants.

此舉立即招致反對異見，也重新引起全國性關於移民改革的對立爭論。
The move unleashed immediate protests and reignited the divisive battle over immigration reform nationally.

而僅於其午後新聞會簽署法案之前，總統奧巴馬就對此事頗有微言。
Even before she signed the bill at an afternoon news conference here, President Obama strongly criticized it.

英文原作詳見《紐約時報》官方網站：
U.S.’s Toughest Immigration Law Signed in Arizona

原文原圖版權歸紐約時報公司所有。

The post 美最嚴移民法在亞桑州簽署 appeared first on PRINCE AWFUL's.

資訊為何如此之多？唉，還不是大家甚麼都在分享
Too Much Information? Hah! Sharing All Online Is the Point

By BRAD STONE

自三藩市報導－卜凱末想讓整個網路世界都知道，他花了四十一塊錢在蘋果專賣店買了個蘋果上網本的護套，花了二十四塊在蘋果蜂餐廳吃東西，花了六千四百五在佛州一間美容院隆鼻。
SAN FRANCISCO — Mark Brooks wants the whole Web to know that he spent $41 on an iPad case at an Apple store, $24 eating at an Applebee’s, and $6,450 at a Florida plastic surgery clinic for nose work.

你想說這樣多的資訊有點過頭了？在互聯網上，這一點也不稀奇。一些新潮的站點正縱容著人們通過網路去傾訴。比如「買東買西」網站，卜先生就常在此廣播他又買了甚麼。又比如「走四方」服務，人們在這個移動社交圈裡公布自己身處世界哪個角落。還有「行動吧」，這是一款蘋果手機程式，人們用它來展示和宣布自己又作了多少次掌上壓，或又上了多久的瑜伽課。
Too much information, you say? On the Internet, there seems to be no such thing. A wave of Web start-ups aims to help people indulge their urge to divulge — from sites like Blippy, which Mr. Brooks used to broadcast news of what he bought, to Foursquare, a mobile social network that allows people to announce their precise location to the world, to Skimble, an iPhone application that people use to reveal, say, how many push-ups they are doing and how long they spend in yoga class.

英文全文詳見紐約時報官方網站：
The New York Times: Too Much Information? Hah! Sharing All Online Is the Point

The post 資訊爆炸源於分享過度 appeared first on PRINCE AWFUL's.

原文原圖版權歸紐約時報公司及美國商會所有。

奧巴馬總統：
你承諾過要終止這場屠殺的
President Obama:
You promised to end this slaughter.

為何美國現在卻帶頭反對將此立法？
Why is US now leading the fight to legalize it?

敬愛的奧巴馬總統：
Dear President Obama:

　　當還是總統候選人之時，你就承諾「要力阻商業捕鯨」，並表態「絕不再讓日本繼續商業捕鯨」。（零八年三月十六日言）
As a candidate for President, you promised “to strengthen the moratorium on commercial whaling,” stating that “Allowing Japan to continue commercial whaling is unacceptable.” (3/16/08)

　　事實上呢，《紐約時報》頭版（一零年四月十五日）就報導你們政府現在正「領軍」國際捕鯨委員會促成一項決議，允許日本、挪威及冰島在二十四年國際禁令後繼續合法商業捕鯨。

Instead, the New York Times front page (4/15/10) reports that your administration is now “leading an effort” within the International Whaling Commission to broker a deal allowing Japan, Norway and Iceland to legally resume commercial whaling despite a 24-year international ban.

That is why environmental organizations and scientists worldwide object to this unseemly back-room deal.

Legalizing commercial whaling won’t end it.

Instead of rewarding Japan for decades of illegal whaling — and the kiling of tens of thousands of whales — you and your administration should be continuing the decades of American leadership that began with Ronald Reagan’s championing of the 1986 international ban on commercial whaling.

Your adminstration’s officials claim in the media that this deal legalizing commercial whaling will save whales. But the truth is that the deal sanctions 10 years of continued whaling — with no agreement for phasing it out! Such misleading statement have created a servere credibility gap for your administration.

We ask you to honor your promise, stop the sellout, and save the whales.

You can help!
Text “IFAW” to 30644
visit www.ifaw.org/stopthesellout
or call 1 (800) 932-4329

IFAW
INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE
WWW.IFAW.ORG

The post 奧巴馬總統：你承諾過要終止這場屠殺的 appeared first on PRINCE AWFUL's.

原文原圖版權歸紐約時報公司及美國商會所有。

一封致總統的公開信
An Open Letter to the President

「國會要作的事應該是為這個國家著想，而非圖一時政治投機而已。」
紐約市市長彭博麥於二零一零年四月十二日

“What Congress should be doing is what’s right for the country, not what is politically popular at the time.”
– New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, April 12, 2010

敬愛的總統先生：
Dear Mr. President:

我們已無法繼續妥協，而現在是時候該行動了。
We couldn’t agree more. And the time to act is now.

同您一樣，我們關注這迫在眉睫的金融改制已有時日。這亦是為何我們於三年前便向兩黨提議進行大刀闊斧地改革。
Like you, we have been focused on the urgent need for financial regulatory reform for some time. That is why three years ago we proposed bipartisan, sweeping reforms.

自上次大修金融規章已過七十五年。商業公司支持有所改革，也需要這樣的改革。美國經濟復甦更是要看這些改革作得如何。只有作好了，各大小企業纔能有資金雇新人，發新品，及尋得新主顧。
It’s been 75 years since we last overhauled our financial regulations. Business supports and needs reforms. The American economic recovery depends on getting these reforms right so that businesses of all sizes can get the cash they need to creat new jobs, invest in new products, and find new customers.

以上美國商會載《紐約時報》致總統公開信全文見其官方網站：
http://www.uschamber.com/ads/100421_finreg_letter.htm

The post 一封致總統的公開信 appeared first on PRINCE AWFUL's.