France Bans Media From Mentioning Twitter and Facebook

[engine]

France Bans Media From Mentioning Twitter and Facebook [bbc.co.uk]

French TV and radio presenters have been banned from mentioning social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter on air.

The country's broadcasting watchdog has ruled that doing so would break guidelines on advertising.

Stations can still talk about services without naming them, it said.

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

The regulation effectively prevents market leading sites from gaining additional promotion by virtue of their size.

They do have a point I suppose?

[scooterdude]

its obvious that they have a point, Here in the UK , its been getting a bit much

[bhonda]

Makes sense. I'm sure the UK will make a similar move at some point...we'll hear that familiar '...blah blah blah Facebook, but we have to tell you other social media sites are available', like the media currently does with other brand names.

I wonder who benefits most from mentioning Facebook and Twitter, etc, though. Is it the social media site, or the person/organisation themselves mentioning it. Self-promotion by association?

[Yeah, I have no idea what I'm talking about really. I do software, not media!]

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

The BBC has a well known track record for avoiding mentioning company names and anything that could be remotely described as promotion. It always makes me sad when I hear people like David Dimbleby mentioning Twitter and Facebook as though they were something other than commercial, profit making organisations that benefit by association.

I would have thought the Beeb was above that sort of stuff. Why should they promote massive companies like this while avoiding all mention of smaller companies who could do with the publicity?

[Panthro]

Interesting. I think I like that. In fact, maybe I'll "Like", "+1", or Tweet it.

[londrum]

twitter often makes the news in its own right, though. how are they going to avoid mentioning it then?

in the UK for example, we had all those super injunctions that were breached by twitter. and when egypt tried to shut down the internet it was through sites like facebook and twitter that news got out.
and then you have loads of other, silly stories that get routinely broken on twitter. (like wayne rooney telling the world that he's had a hair transplant).

twitter can be a proper news outlet, and breaks lots of news stories, as much as the BBC does. shall we stop mentioning the BBC too?

[ken_b]

So I take it they can't say "follow me on Twitter or Facebook" like the news people do here in the US?

[wheel]

So I take it they can't say "follow me on ***** or **** like the news people do here in the US?

ken_b we've got some readers from France on this forum so I've edited your post to be France-appropriate.

Please be careful going forward. Nobody wants trouble with the authorities.

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

shall we stop mentioning the BBC too?

Shall who stop mentioning them?

[HuskyPup]

So I take it they can't say "follow me on Twitter or Facebook" like the news people do here in the US?

That's the problem in the UK, they're always mentioning it, it's become a me too PITA.

[Leosghost]

Eh?.. Quoi?.. Qui? QUI ? ..ah ..tant mieux ..; -)

[Leosghost]

Seriously though the "product placement" for these two companies on the French TV news and radio was becoming ridiculous and needed reining in..

Now they just need to to move on to "fruity" shiny products, which they all manage to slide into just about every program that isn't set in pre 20th century existence..

[lexipixel]

Next they won't be able to mention razors for shaving women's armpits on French t.v.

[Old_Honky]

The most annoying thing about the BBC news is that virtually every correspondent has a blog, and after they've said their piece the anchor says something like "you can read more on Eric's Blog". What? I've just heard what he had to say, I don't want to waste any more of my time reading the same thing.

IMHO Life is too short and time is too precious to read these blogs or use farcebook or tweeter.

As for the French they are being paranoid and forcing their news people to use even more words than they normally do as they strive to come up with a non brand name description for facebook and twitter. They can't just say "a well known social networking site" that would be imprecise and the viewer could be confused, so they will have to say something like " a well known social networking site where users have to make statements of 140 characters or less". It is like the injunction culture where we kept hearing the phrase "a well known premiership footballer" when they mean Ryan Giggs.

[Leosghost]

The point is that French public TV, Antenne 2, FR 3 etc were mentioning facebook and twitter non stop in their news broadcasts ..whether or not either of those companies was involved or was a source of the story being covered ..

As French public TV has by law been prohibited from running advertising between certain peak time hours ( it is instead funded by "le redévance" ..similar to the UK licence fee and about the same price ) ..the constant "mentions" were obvious paid product placement ..and so the CSA said "ça suffit !"

As I said, now if they can just get around to dealing with the strategic placement of shiny fruit tech ( and never other brands in sight ) in programs on those chaines ..all will be as it was intended ..and only ad supported commercial TV stations will be showing ads..

Re the non acceptance of English words and brands here ..that is something of a myth nowadays ..the problem is in fact the totally incorrect misappropriation of English words ..such as "footing" being used to mean "jogging" ..and "jogging" being used to mean "track suit" etc..Oh and "parking" for the place where you put your car ..as opposed to how you put it there..

The use of English inappropriately by those here who wish to seem "trendy" is embarrassing..even our local supermarket ( part of a national chain ) plays, amongst the other selections of more staid musak, gangsta rap of the "contains explicit lyrics" type , loudly....during the afternoons and weekends ..to accompany one around the aisles..

Leads to many double takes from the Anglophone tourists with small children in tow ,who come here on holiday...

Especially when the staff are humming and singing along with it, using words which they don't understand, and which won't get past the filters here ..

[Demaestro]

That's the problem in the UK, they're always mentioning it

Wouldn't it make more sense to let the market decide?

If programs are annoyingly pushing those services then viewers/listeners should complain and tune out, this will cause the bosses to curb it themselves.

Why does a law need to be made? Why does the freedom of one get limited by the actions of another? I hate when laws/regulations get passed for this reason. It reminds me of Elementary school when 1 kid couldn't play ball tag properly so now no one gets to play ball tag.

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

Why does the freedom of one get limited by the actions of another?

What freedom? I think this is more about broadcasters abusing their position is it not?

[Demaestro]

What freedom?

The freedom to say over the air, follow us on facebook or twitter.

I think this is more about broadcasters abusing their position is it not?

I'm not sure, this article doesn't really say, but if it is the reason, that is my point..... Why should the people who are not abusing their position be limited in what they can do because of the action of others who are abusing their position?

[Leosghost]

I don't know about the BBC , but here there was a very good indication that they ( the newspresenters and the TV companies ) were being paid to say it..and to allow it to be said..hence the ban ..

@Demaestro ..you may be confusing freedom of speech with what amounts to payola .. banning newsreaders from mentioning specific products multiple times per day or hour for pay ..doesn't mean banning you from mentioning them naturally..

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

being paid to say it

Yes, that's what I meant. It really has nothing to do with freedom.

[Demaestro]

@Demaestro ..you may be confusing freedom of speech with what amounts to payola .. banning newsreaders from mentioning specific products multiple times per day or hour for pay ..doesn't mean banning you from mentioning them naturally..

I'm not, the article specifically says that you can't mention them, it doesn't specify if it is a natural mention or a paid mention.

Yes, that's what I meant. It really has nothing to do with freedom.

Yes it does, For example if I am a radio personality in France who just did a toy drive, even if I am not being paid to do so, I no longer have the freedom to say, "We had a great event at the toy drive last week, Check out the pictures we posted on Facebook"

To me that is an unnecessary restriction to put on someone just because their colleagues aren't as honest.

[Leosghost]

I'm not, the article specifically says that you can't mention them, it doesn't specify if it is a natural mention or a paid mention.

That article doesn't ..for one thing it is in English in English media ..the French language media ( in particular French TV ) has run other stories and comments ( mainly late night and being careful to name no names* ) in the lead up to this story breaking and the decision by the CSA..

*The naming no names part is a regular occurrence in French media ..the culture here is very much one of "a bad private deal is better than a good win in court" ..such things lead for example to the DSK debacle..where everyone here knew precisely what the guy was like ..but as he and his wife were media celebs , politicians and had "pull" ..their media friends made sure that stories were spiked...women just learned to avoid being near him without someone else present..

The CSA could have named names ( and caused media uproar ..because many more are "at it" ..backed by some politicians ..many of whom are "going cheap" and or are married to the same set of TV presenters ) ..instead they chose to publicly say ..enough is enough now no one can do this ..everyone knew however at whom the invisible fingers are pointing..

Plus there is an element of if the same companies are constantly promoted , and only the same companies , it does not lead to competition , but it in fact stifles it, as the playing field is not even when in theory all companies must pay for official obvious advertising ..but some can get prime time ads especially at hours when there are no ads allowed on those networks ..via product placement mentions and cash bribes..

Its the equivalent of having the presenters on USA PSB TV being told you can't keep the coke bottle in view while the camera rolls and keep telling else how much you like it either..especially if coke is paying for your car and your vacations..

Not that coke would do such a thing ..

BTW its not all the radio or TV personalities who are forbidden ( only those whose job is to present the news and current affairs programs ) ..the others are at liberty to mention any product or company ..as long as they are not doing so for pay..the article is inaccurate in many respects ..then again in spite of what they may say, and their bosses may think ..the actual fluency and comprehension of many of the correspondents in France that are sent here to report for other countries news networks is very poor..they frequently get many details wrong or translate badly what they read ..and many never or infrequently leave the foreign press quarters of Paris..

BBC reporters over the last 20 years or so make me laugh, their understanding of French is so bad..but how would their bosses know ? their own is even worse.

btw2 French radio or TV "personalities" ..with very very few exceptions ..wouldn't do a toy drive , nor anything else for no pay..they all only push either their books or shows ..or the shows or books of their friends..they even ask "expenses" for the charity "benefit" gigs that are shown on TV..

Not salaries ..nor fees .."just expenses mind ..because after all I'm appearing for free..it shouldn't mean that I also have to put my hand in my own pocket" ..translated from the French ..which I have heard more than once ..with these very ears..as have others I know.

[edited by: Leosghost at 6:04 pm (utc) on Jun 8, 2011]

[Demaestro]

If that is the case then that isn't so bad. I was under the impression that you were no longer allowed to mention social media sites... at all, for any reason.

[ken_b]

So if one of these companies broke French privacy laws, would the newscasters be allowed to name the company when the reported the story?

[Leosghost]

Yes because that would be imparting information and reporting the news, as opposed to merely redirecting viewers to an other company during the news broadcasts with whom they have any sort of official or unofficial relationship ..

Interestingly enough and it proves my point about how little the BBC journos understand ..the TV presenter shown on the BBC article "Laurence Ferrari"..works for the commercial company TF1..not one of the state owned ones..one of whom made the complaint to the CSA..and that, inspite of the fact that their sister state TV company was the one who was really abusing this in each news and current affaires broadcast.

So it backfired on them somewhat..

It is now 20.20 and I've just switched on the TV and have the evening news running in the background as I type ..I'll keep my ears peeled for mentions of either "social network" this evening ..;-))

[wheel]

I know the financial folks in our country are careful to indicate when commenting whether they own a stock or not - and I think they try not to comment on stocks they own.

But there's one newer celebrity who owns a fund company who's got his own business/finance news show. And he's quite blatant about it. I watched him this week interviewing another fund company manager - a direct competitor interviewing them. You'd think it was bad form, but it was actually awesome. If you know the bias, the guy can pull the gloves off and say stuff like 'I don't own that stock', then follow it with 'and we never will'. And he gets to ask the tough questions because he actually knows what he's talking about.

[moTi]

rational decision, way to go! kudos again to the french.

twitter often makes the news in its own right, though. how are they going to avoid mentioning it then?

if the news is about or from twitter, no problem. to my understanding, it's only about that unnecessary free promotion like "visit us on twitter".

as they strive to come up with a non brand name description for facebook and twitter.

no, they shouldn't strive, because actually public service tv has their own web properties. i wonder why they don't use them instead.

Wouldn't it make more sense to let the market decide?

private stations can mention facebook, twitter, youtube as much as they want. but i strongly disagree that tax payers should put up with publicly funded broadcasters advertising single private companies for free and during the program. that's competitive distortion.

[lexipixel]

I know the financial folks in our country are careful to indicate when commenting whether they own a stock or not - and I think they try not to comment on stocks they own.

Or just be blatant and act ignorant like Scarianna Huffingtongue at Techlunch Disrupt...