Subscribe to our RSS feed
Follow us on Twitter
Screengrab of the soon-to-launch MinneAdpolis.com.
Rebranding MinneAdpolis: Minneapolis got props in Sunday’s New York Times for a cooperative effort by 27 advertising agencies who are hoping to rebrand the state’s biggest city as “the City of Advertising.” The group, made up of local American Association of Advertising Agencies (or Four A’s) members, plans to launch a new site showcasing the city and the participating firms’ creative work at MinneAdpolis.com this week.
UnConvention ad wins: One of the participating MinneAdpolis firms, Campbell Mithun, recently won a Silver Pencil at the New York Art Directors Club’s One Show for a TV commercial created for The UnConvention, a festival of artistic alternatives to last summer’s Republican National Convention. The spot “Park” won best public service commercial, beating out an ad for Shelter done by Leo Burnett London. The commercial shows two pairs of kissing couples — two men and two women — who switch positions so as not to irk passing Republicans.
Locals featured in NYT Somali piece: This weekend’s New York Times story about local Somali youth who’ve returned home to fight in the country’s civil war against Ethiopia has more local angles. University of Minnesota graduate and former Minnesota Daily editorial board member Ramla Bile served as writer Andrea Elliott’s fixer for the piece, and Voice of America reporter Abdi Aynte, a former Minnesota Independent fellow who left to work for the BBC, is interviewed for the accompanying video, “Recruiting Americans for Jihad.” Aynte, who wrote a pair of MnIndy stories on missing Somali men, said in an email that the piece was “simply one of the best” he’s seen on the topic.
Quid pro D’oh! USA Today last week wrote an ominous-sounding story headlined, “Billions in aid go to areas that backed Obama in ‘08.” But it’s not until the very last paragraph of the 575-word piece that you find the critical context that probably should’ve killed that sensational headline: “The imbalance didn’t start with the stimulus. From 2005 through 2007, the counties that later voted for Obama collected about 50% more government aid than those that supported McCain, according to spending reports from the U.S. Census Bureau.”
Leave a comment
Become a fan on Facebook
3 Comments »
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 11:02 am
“…should’ve killed that sensational headline”?
It’s been imbalanced for a while so you shouldn’t point it out now? By your logic, if Obama were found to be waterboarding detainees, there should be no story. It started under Bush.
Obviously that is foolish. Perhaps you should argue the reality that Democrats run a larger percentage of social programs so of course they are going to receive more federal funds. If Republicans wanted to administrate more social programs, there would be more balance.
When you try to spin it instead of explain it we all lose. Educate people, yes it’s more work, but it’s much harder to argue against someones values than statistical spin.
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 11:09 am
I’m not spinning anything. My point: that final fact should’ve come in the lede.
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
Should the headline read “Areas that receive the most aid continue to receive billions under Obama”?
The headlines insinuation is that Obama is buying off areas that voted for him. When you say they should highlight these areas have received aid traditionally it turns into a statistic war. “They are receiving an average per capita of 26% percent more aid under Obama…” and other such irrelevant numbers.
I am suggesting the approach should lean to explaining the need for the funds with a focus on how these areas were UNDERFUNDED in the past. Isn’t that more in line with the argument? When the person you disagree with is skewing facts or making insinuations, my approach is to explain your position clearly, not waste time pointing out order of presentation.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment