Agencies and Twitter- use at your peril

Image via CrunchBase

I’ve been thinking a lot about using the wires lately, and the good and bad that come from them.

In my current role as an online news producer I use them a lot more than I did in my previous role with More4 News, where I worked on longer-form, longer lasting projects.

Since reading Flat Earth News, and having it change my whole outlook and all, I’ve been looking more critically at certain aspects of the modern news media that may have slipped my attention before.

The wires are a case in point. All news organisations rely too heavily on the ‘news’ as agencies such as Reuters and AP, and in Australia’s case, Australian Associated Press, deem fit to report it. This is obviously well documented, but in the online age it leads to cock ups, such as mine the other day.

This brings me to Twitter. I tend to use it as a kind of feed when I’m at work (@SBSNews) but I saw for myself the clear problem of relying on someone else’s reporting the other day, matched with the desire to be first (take that, ABC Online), only compounded by using Twitter.

The issue arose with the ‘abduction’ of children from Haiti last Sunday.

“Just in on the wires: Haitian police holding 10 US citizens on suspicion of trafficking children” I tweeted.  I absolved myself somewhat by crediting it to the agency at hand – but how foolish.

It was made quite clear to me a few minutes later I’d made a mistake.

“Update: The 10 US citizens held on suspicion of ‘trafficking’ children members of a charity called New Life Children’s Refuge”, I was forced to backtrack.

So clearly, no evil trafficking of children for the purpose of kidney harvesting.

More likely a bureaucratic cock-up.

More spurious news organisations (I’m thinking of Australia’s only 24 hour news channel) were quite happy to run with the misleading ‘trafficking’ tag for a few more hours, even once it was abundantly clear, but I’d learnt a lesson: Put your trust in the wires at your peril – Twitter won’t be your friend when you make a howler.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Baptists Say Members ‘Falsely Arrested’ in Haiti (nytimes.com)
• Americans Held For Taking Haiti Children (news.sky.com)
• Some thoughts on why Australians are #1 globally on social media usage (from a slow start) (rossdawsonblog.com)
• US Missionary ‘Child traffickers’ held in Haiti (harlemworldblog.wordpress.com)

Internet blackout campaign in face of idiocy

Image via Wikipedia

A good response from the Australian Internet Blackout campaign on Australia Day (invasion day, for others) last week.

According to somebody think of the children, 455 websites took part in the campaign to stop the Federal Government helping Australia to join China, Iran and others that we tend to criticise relentlessly, in censoring and filtering the Internet, mostly to please paedophile obsessed hype-merchants.

I forgot to do it – so a good ten visitors to my blog missed out there – but thankfully some forward thinking souls at both The Greens and The Australian Democrats helped get the political message out.

As it stands, the plans are ill thought out, costly, and far from foolproof .

Related articles by Zemanta

• Millions Of Extra Sites To Be Censorsed As Australian Gov. Bans Small Breasts, Female Ejaculation (inquisitr.com)
• Anti-Censorship Group Wants To Send Conroy Coal For Xmas (gizmodo.com.au)
• Twitter Developing Technology To Thwart Censorship (yro.slashdot.org)

Testing this FOI legislation

When working for More4 News at ITN, freedom of information legislation provided me with many a scoop. It’s been criticised as a tool which is often overused by ‘lazy’ journalists, particularly when ‘phishing’ for information, often by using mass-emailing techniques to government bodies.

I’ve used this technique. It’s annoyed many a press officer, I am sure, and probably used up a fair bit of taxpayer’s money. But like phishing for bank details from unsuspecting/stupid email users, it works in the pursuit of uncovering government waste/ineptitude/wrongdoing.

Australia has had FOI legislation for years, and as a journalist trying to get a foot in somewhere – and low on contacts – I guess will use whatever tools I can to get a scoop… Let’s see how fruitful it is over here.

Getting noticed as a young freelance journalist without friends (or relatives) in high places does require hard, unpaid work. If you can give a kick-arse story on a plate to an editor or EP though, you’re half way there.

Do let me know if there’s anything I can FOI for as the basis of an investigation.  Lazy? Newspapers use that one all the time…not to mention ’send us your videos’. Please.

Newsroom buzz

Image via Wikipedia

Last week, SBS News and Current Affairs finally made the shift to the brand-spanking new digital newsroom.

Despite being ahead in the online presence stakes (I’ve been getting decent video news from my current employer, online, for years now), making the shift to a digital, non-linear newsroom, has been years in the making, and well behind local rivals.

I began as an online producer at World News Australia around 3 months ago, and for the whole period I’ve been with them, we’d been stuck in a windowless room out back, along with Dateline and Insight, while the newsroom was being stuck together.

Now, we’re once again in the thick of it, and that’s how it should be. I personally think news organisations who treat their online presences as add ons have it coming. They’re fine for the moment, sure. I don’t even believe all of the hype; It’s still gonna be all about ‘TV’ news bulletins for years to come. But time is ticking, so it’s nice that the on-air talent realise the importance of their online teams. At the end of the day, for such a small-operation (SBS as a whole) to have a decent website, with a google rank of six (not bad), and an alexa rank of around the 15,000 mark, considering it only hits around 2 per cent of market share on the telly box, is commendable.

Always nice to be back in the thick of it with the rest of the team making it work. Plus, Sundays in a windowless room all on your own, with nothing but Sky News for company, really isn’t good for the soul.

Related articles by Zemanta

• US newspapers, not TV, seek web skills (reportr.net)
• Fake Brazilian president fooled radio Portuguese stations before being uncovered in Australia (telegraph.co.uk)

Shorthand vs Sony Z1 and social media

Image by CatDancing via Flickr

Tried my hand at court-reporting today – for the first time.

It does seem strange that these days someone can have been a journalist for a number of years and yet never have set foot inside a courtroom with the intention of covering the goings on – but I guess that’s where we’re at.

I’d like to say I went out of some firmly-held belief at the importance of relaying the machinations of our democratic system to the general public – but I  had to cover a specific case – Betfair vs Racing NSW.

And it’s funny – you can learn all the social media strategies you like, get bogged down in high-quality compression techniques for video and sound, learn to light and frame an interviewee perfectly – but man, without shorthand, court reporting is something else.

The journo next to me was obviously an old (short) hand at the task, while I struggled to keep up. I could barely read my own writing when I got home.

No more technology. Too many strings on that bow. I need some shorthand, a cigar, some braces, a trilby and a big fuck-off cigar. Oh, and a camera with a flash that goes ‘poof’.

Holy crap, investigative journalists needed.

There is hope, oh lovers of accountability, democracy, and whopping big come-uppances.

Just received word from a colleague that investigative journalists are actually being hired in London.

Iain Overton, a former executive producer of mine at More4 News (ITN), was recently appointed Managing Editor of the newly-founded Bureau of Investigative Journalism. It’s the first project of its kind in the UK, and has support from hugely-respected Seymour Hersh, and author of the worrying but timely Flat Earth News (currently doing my young journalistic brain in), Nick Davies.

“People from print, online and broadcast backgrounds are encouraged to apply, provided they understand how to conduct long term investigations, have a grasp of media law and are able to work both alone and heading up a small team.  Skills such as being able to understand financial data, how to carry out Fois and languages are all assets.”

So there you have it. Life in the old format yet. Hoorah!  Get in touch with ‘em at jobs@tbij.com if you fit the bill.

Public broadcasters and charging for content

Just thought I’d post quickly in relation to last night’s Media Watch on the ABC. If you live outside of Australia, or indeed live in Australia but missed it, it’s well worth watching. Not only is it on the seemingly never-ending debate about paying for content, it’s got what every college-journalist shamefully strives for – conflict!

A great analysis of the war of words between the ABC’s chief Mark Scott and the Murdochs. Well, I’m not sure if Rupert and James are that bothered about the ABC when, in an  age where newspapers and broadcasters increasingly occupy the same space,  it’s clearly the BBC that poses the bigger commercial problem – but the arguments are the same wherever a strong public broadcaster offers online content.

It’s especially interesting comparing the ABC vs News Ltd and the rest spat against the BBC vs News Lts and the rest spat. Although clearly the smaller player, the ABC seems to operate with a lot more confidence than the Beeb. The obvious answer to this is the less visible model of charging the consumer – most punters would probably prefer to have funding quietly taken from their taxes than loudly receive threatening letters to cough up a licence-fee in the mail.

Something the show didn’t go into quite enough detail over, I’d argue, is the role of public broadcasting. Maybe the BBC and ABC should be forced to dump the content that doesn’t play a vital role in democracy? Strictly Come Dancing might be a good laugh (not for me, of course), but is it a good use of tax and licence-fee money? It would rob Murdoch of one part of his argument- for about 30 seconds – if the essential forms of journalism that don’t sell The Sun or Sydney’s Daily Telegraph – in terminal decline on TV as they are – were protected from the storm while entertainment was left to HBO. After all, they do it best.

It would be hard for anyone to argue that a crucial role in uncovering injustice, lies, deception and corruption of power is not currently played by publicly-funded broadcasters – which, of course, includes their online offerings. If the state-funded model (such as the ABC) is to survive another few decades, surely it will have to be stripped down and refined to provide what it does best – an essential source of quality investigative journalism, news and current affairs. And you know what? Far more of it.

Australia’s broadcast gap

I haven’t blogged for over a month, and the reason for that is that we’ve been on the road. Or in the air, or on a train. Lots of trains.

We’ve returned to Sydney after London and Berlin, and I’ve been out of Australia for 3 years. A lot can change in 1 year, let alone 3. As it happens, not much has happened in the Australian media landscape. Of course, a couple of things have come and gone.  Digital TV has expanded, slowly, leaving us with a few more offerings. The Sydney Morning Herald, the only intelligent paper not owned by Rupert Murdoch here in Australia’s biggest city, has lost a little quality. Online offerings of broadcasters have improved a little, of course.

But the overwhelming feature of Australian free to air TV remains – the enormous gulf in quality between the commercial TV networks, and the public service offerings of the ABC and SBS.

Last week, Channel Nine’s Hey Hey It’s Saturday made headlines in the rest of the English-speaking world for a piss-poor black and white minstrels routine. Never mind the shocking cultural insensitivity – the fact that Hey Hey’s comeback won the ratings battle on the night beggars belief. Marina Hyde in the Guardian used it as a stick to beat Australia with, a land which she suggested brings very little to the world of intelligent popular culture. (note; can’t for the life of me find a link for this. Have they taken it down?) Watching Channel Nine, or for that matter Channel Ten, and certainly Channel Seven, it would be entirely fair to come to this conclusion.

What has not changed in the last 3 years is the programming divide. In the UK, the debate around dumbing down has been going on for years. The once proud BBC current affairs strand Panorama is a shell of its former self. But quality factual TV – in the form of documentary and investigative journalism – is alive and well in Australia, on the ABC and SBS.  The current affairs shows screened on Channels 7 and 9 each weeknight, Today Tonight and A Current Affair, are some of the most vile programming I’ve come across. Dishonest, lazy and frequently bigoted attempts at ‘journalism’ might rate well – but any country’s media professionals would be proud of the work going on at the ABC and SBS.

This evening on ABC 1, the flagship news bulletin was followed by the solid current affairs 7.30 Report, which was followed by a typically thorough Four Corners film on businessman James Packer, which was followed by the ever-reliable spotlight of Media Watch. A break for the ever-present BBC drama (no changes there), and it’s back to serious business with Lateline, then Lateline Business. SBS went in with Indigenous current affairs show Living Black at 6pm, followed by an hour of the editorially-sound World News Australia, before Top Gear and Bear Grylls relapses, then the 9.30 World News. Tomorrow night they’ll be showing the outstanding Dateline international affairs show – which the ABC will match with Foreign Correspondent later in the week.

It’s often said that the US’s ‘culture wars’ might have come to an end with the presidency of Barack Obama. With Fox News around, that’s unlikely. What is interesting, though, is that this can be seen in Australia too; for the unibigotted, curious and intelligent television viewer, there’s plenty going on. There’s also plenty of crap on TV here, worse than Britain can serve up. And it’s mostly confined to the commercial networks, unlike Britain where commercial Channel 4, despite a lot of its own tosh, leads the way in news and current affairs (although receiving public money), while BBC One hardly deals with anything intelligent.

Yet the difference between the types of network in Australia is profound. There is barely a reason to grab the remote and leave ABC or SBS. It can’t be a good thing – but it’s the same as 3 years ago.

Financial Times, Journalism Online and Paid Content: The Price has to be Right

Image via Wikipedia

A piece in today’s Financial Times focuses on US start-up Journalism Online – reporting that more than 500 newspapers and magazines are joining the ‘online payment platform’. The idea is a one-stop payment shop for a whole host of providers.

Lately – and especially since Rupert Murdoch threw his (renewed) weight behind charging for content- I’ve heard numerous commentators state that if it can be made easy to pay, then people will do so. Even Charlie Brooker has been on the case .

Most likely, a model like Journalism Online’s is the way to go. Whether it will be them that succeed is another question, but the interesting thing is the reasons they think it will work.  Describing ‘Why Readers Will Pay For Online News’, the company seems to simply be stating ‘Why News Organisations Can’t Keep Offering Content For Free’. These are clearly not the same thing – just because your news organisation (the founders are, I understand, former journalists) can’t survive without revenue being kept up, does not mean that people will pay for it. Try looking from the other side.

Personally, I think that those that have the money, and the desire for quality news, will slowly come to the acceptance that they will need to pay a small amount for it. Millions will not pay, and will get their news from secondary sources. But if the price is right (ie , low – think how internationally popular British papers, for instance, would see readers drop off  if readers in poorer countries were forced to pay an amount that was deemed reasonable in Britain), they’ll make themselves some money.

But publishers shouldn’t forget that different people have different means. The FT points out in the aforementioned piece that the Wall Street Journal and the FT themselves have been succesful at implementing paid models. Well, I think we can all agree that firstly, most readers of the FT and WSJ are searching for niche news. But arguably more importantly, most readers of the WSJ and FT are not short of a bob or two. What works for them may not keep others going.  As someone who has essentially lost a job twice this year due to media organisations/content creators spending more than they bring in, I can agree that this has to be fixed soon. But just because turkies don’t vote for Christmas, we can’t assume cost-free turkies wouldn’t go down equally well,  if not better, than their free range, organic grain-fed cousins.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Charles Warner: The Economist Eats the WSJ’s Lunch (huffingtonpost.com)
• Some wishful thinking by Rupert Murdoch? (thisisherd.com)
• Financial Times mulls micropayments (telegraph.co.uk)
• Journalism Online, would-be newspaper savior, gathers steam (dailyfinance.com)
• You: Why Rupert Murdoch’s corporate suicide will be great for bloggers (thenextweb.com)
• 176 Newspapers Join Up to Charge You – Online Users – $50-$100-$1000s A Year to Read News (themoderatevoice.com)
• The Content Crisis Deconstructed (arnoldit.com)
• Questions over who would be willing to pay for online news (reportr.net)
• Would you pay for your news? (newsforums.bbc.co.uk)
• All the news that’s free to print (innovationtoronto.com)
• ★ Charging for Access to News Sites (daringfireball.net)

New Statesman’s new-look website borrows from Guardian?

Image by Scorpions and Centaurs via Flickr

Since I last read the New Statesman around a month ago, they’ve revamped the homepage, reducing clutter and opting for the minimalist approach.

It’s really quite nice, I thought to myself. Then I went off and did something else, came back to the page, and thought to myself once more;  ‘Since when did the Guardian use red headlines?’. Well, they don’t – I just couldn’t tell the difference, and had forgotten I’d had the New Statesman open. A quick comparison between the two reveals extreme similarities in the layout, and even the font used.

I wrote a paper for an MA last year in which I compared, amongst other things, similarities between the Guardian and the Telegraph’s homepage and online approach. In fact, althought these two are still quite similar, it’s getting even harder to spot real differences in approach to layout between major Western papers, be it  El Pais,  Le Monde, the Sydney Morning Herald or even, but perhaps less so, the New York Times. Interestingly, I read a few German papers from time to time and none of them seem to be going down the same route, be it the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine, the left-leaning Sued Deutsche or centrist Die Zeit.

As for the New Statesman, maybe it’s just another sign that what media convergence really means is as much about delivery of content, as to how it looks on the virtual page. Currently, ‘broadcasters’- that is organisations that focus more heavily on broadcasting than they do on their online approach – present their online information quite differently to ‘newspapers’, even though both are bound to feature a mixture of text and video content. Let’s bet that we’ll see more presentational convergence across the news-providing board just over the horizon.

Related articles by Zemanta

• 10 Ways Newspapers are Using Social Media to Save the Industry (mashable.com)
• Newspapers Must Charge for Online Content (markevanstech.com)