Entering a brave new world.

Online Journalism Week Nine

A lot of credit has to go out to Rick Waghorn.

As a Norwich football writer for the Norwich Evening News he had a specific audience, who knew who he was and relied on him for their intake of Norwich City FC. Something that would have taken him a long time to build. Football fans are a stubborn lot, they do not like change.

His venture into myfootballwriter.com, that he took up upon leaving the Norwich Evening News, was a bold one. The project has not taken over the world and as he explained in his lecture due to the current financial climate he has had to pull back a bit. As an idea, however, the potential is there for it to spread. It is a unique idea, and with a wider spread of teams covered it could have a bright future.

As we are always being told traditional media is dying. Rick's case is a example where a traditional journalist has attempted to adapt to the new world of the media.

Clearly this is what some of us will have to do - be bold.

I need you....to converse with me.

Shane Richmond, Communities Editor of telegraph.co.uk, advised patience and perseverance when creating a blogging audience. He talked about two kinds of blog followings; one that is broad and shallow with a generalised audience, the other, a deep and narrow following that speaks to a specific audience.

Clearly my blog is the latter. Currently I have ten followers. They all have one common interest: Cardiff Journalism School's Online Journalism module. This is what I blog about. For narrow bloggers, like me, Shane outlined the need to create argument and debate with which followers can interact and comment on. I am not begging, yet. However, please feel free to comment and express your opinion below.

Shane's lecture went on to talk about legality and the issue of freedom of speech that surrounds blogs and the debates in relation to telegraph.co.uk's My Telegraph section of the website.

Shane Richmond giving a lecture to his Telegraph Colleagues

My Telegraph is a section of telegraph.co.uk, which gives users a platform to create their own blog. This presents Shane and his employers with a potential legal headache. In order to avoid the legal problems, The Telegraph doesn't read the blogs posted in My Telegraph, unless a reader brings it to their attention. They do, however, place a legal warning disclaimer that bloggers have to accept before they publish.

Is this responsible journalism?

Potentially, their approach could lead to blogs promoting a number of extreme opinions using The Telegraph's renowned banner as a platform. Some would argue that allowing BNP councillor, Richard Barnbrook to blog on My Telegraph is an example of this lack of responsibility. The Telegraph's defence is that their readers are entitled to their opinions as long as they are within the law.

Even so, titles like, 'Blame the immigrants', and quotes in reference to crime, like, 'most of it is being done by immigrants or by the sons of immigrants', are legal but they are clearly going to aggravate extremists. It would leave any cooperation in a sticky situation.

I don't agree with anything Richard Barnbrook has to say and I don't necessarily agree with the political leaning of 'The Telegraph' either. I believe, however, that 'The Telegraph' made the right decision in allowing Barnbrook's blog to continue.

If you silence Barnbrook, where do you stop?

Just because you do not agree with a opinion, it does not mean you should block it. Freedom of Speech is a key corner stone of democracy. We talked earlier in the course about the Internet's potential to aid democracy.

I talked in my previous post, 'Democracy and Anarchy?', about the danger that uncontrolled sites like CNN's ireport could lead to, while praising the BBC's 'Have your Say' website that checks all audience contributions. I think My Telegraph strikes a happy medium with their approach. They allow more freedom then the BBC but will punish anyone who over-steps the mark.

The blog community that Shane controls reflects a good and healthy real life community. Maybe he is Britain's answer to Barack Obama.

I think most of my colleagues will agree with me on that. Won't they?

IMAGES - 'speakers corner concessions' courtesy of uktrip2006pt, from flickr.com, 'Barack Obama' courtesy of Baonguyen from flickr.com, 'presenting' courtesy of telegraph media group from flickr.com.

Blogging is a Conversation.

Conversation Pic - b_d_solis from flickr.com

My blogging colleague, Si Pusey, in his blog, ‘Simon Says’, touches on his frustration that our guest lecturer, Adam Tinworth, was unable to answer his question on impartiality in blogs written by broadcasters for broadcast outlets. He also questioned whether the banner of a broadcast outlet restricted the ability of broadcasters to blog.

I am not fully aware of whether Si believes that the broadcast outlet restricts a broadcaster’s ability to blog. However, I do agree with him that broadcasters’ blogs are more impartial then their counterparts’ blogs from the print media.

In answer to his question: Does impartially restrict the broadcaster’s blog?

I say no.

If anything, I think it enhances it. The blog acts as an agenda setting tool; a conversation starter. As Si himself proved, he has asked a question, not told me the answer. I have thought about it and replied.

This is exactly what good television and radio should do. I don’t want to hear broadcasters’ views; I want them to inform me so I can have a view. I am not saying I do not want to hear others’ opinions but we also need a balanced starting block from which we can shape our opinion, and then fairly access other people’s.

I have noticed the irony of this blog, as I have expressed my opinion. I didn’t start the conversation and definitely have not ended it, just continued it…

Watch the adverts, please

Sky plus has revolutionised television viewing, it has changed the way I approach watching TV. I do not watch a huge amount of TV but there is little doubt that Sky Plus makes my viewing experience all the more pleasurable. I am able to look ahead to what is on at any point in the next few days, such as a re-run of the 1992 Cricket World Cup Final on ENSP Classic televised at 2 am and then watch the recording at a more convenient time. Not only do I not have to wait up all night to watch it but it makes my TV watching experience even more enjoyable as I am able to fast forward through the adverts. The ability to do this is great, you can even do it with live TV; ‘Neighbours’ is about to come on, hit the pause button on your remote, go and make yourself a cup of tea, go to the toilet, do whatever for just over five minutes come back hit play, when the adverts come on half way through…fast forward. TV watching made easy because let’s face it despite the odd pre-World Cup sporting brand adverts, TV adverts are dull and repetitive. (On the other hand internet adverts are brilliant, anyone who wishes to advertise on this page please get in touch).

Hang on wait a minute. I never realised the damage that I am causing to the commercial television industry. New technology such as Sky Plus could cripple the most important source for funding for commercial television.

I am calling for all of you who adopt this tactic to watch your TV to reconsider your actions.

If you do not there are only two other options. One, further contraction of the television industry or the only other option increased adverts in television programmes. Bond like product placement or rolling adverts at the bottom of your screen.

Who wants that?

'Sky and Lights' provided by Richard Winskill, from Flickr.com

Does lightening ever strike twice? A digital story.

The future is bright...but don't get blinded.

Paul Bradshaw’s ‘News Diamond’ presents a model for a 21^st century newsroom.

The model has two layers.

The first layer demonstrates how journalists can use the Internet; in particular, networking sites to increase the speed of breaking news stories. As journalists this should excite us all. Historically, journalism has been about breaking news and breaking it fast. The second layer shows how the internet can add depth to the story after its initial breaking, through blogging and forums.

Bradshaw’s model is exciting. It outlines the importance for today’s journalists to build and to stay in touch with, the Internet community. Keeping on top of sites like Twitter and Facebook can be central to network journalism. As more and more people use the Internet and the digital generation takes over, the importance will only become stronger.

Like with everything in online journalism there are pitfalls, such as reliability and breadth of audience etc. Despite this, even for sceptics, it’s difficult to argue that the Internet and networking sites do not strengthen a journalist’s resources.

Even with this strengthening, we must be careful not to forget or neglect previous ways of networking, such as the simple phone call. At the moment, in the early years of this interactive world we must only use the internet to complement older tactics. Maybe one day they will dominate, but then again we must not forget the previous approaches as we may lose personality to the job.

Always remember don’t look directly into the light.

IMAGES - '21st Century Newsroom' courtesy of Victoria Peckham from flickr.com, 'Bradshaw's Model', courtesy of onlinejournalismblog taken from flickr.com, 'sun and moon' courtesy of philly2008 taken from flickr.com.

Democracy or Anarchy?

Dictionary.com defines democracy as: ‘a form of government in which supreme power is vested in the people.’

It defines anarchy as: ‘a state of society without government or law’, ‘a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government’, ‘political and social disorder due to the absence of government control.’

The rise of citizen journalism and user generated content (UGC) has led some to claim that the Internet is playing a key role in expanding democracy.

Dan Gillmor claims in his publication We the Media: Grassroots Journalism By People for the People is democratising the media. He claims: ‘The communication network itself will be a medium for everyone’s voice, not just the few who can afford to buy multimillion-dollar printing presses.’

This may be the case.

Activities such as blogging and UGC sites such as CNN’s iReport allow freedom of speech and expression to stretch further. They allow more and more people to tell their stories or others’ stories to a wider audience.

This freedom is not without its problems, such as inaccurate and sometimes wrong reporting of news. A famous example of this is ‘The Dorset Elk.’ In 2006 both Sky News and The Guardian showed a picture of what was said to be a forest fire in Dorset, sent in by a citizen journalist. A closer look at the photo shows two elks in the foreground, animals not native to Dorset. The photo was a photo taken in 2000, in Montana. CNN’s iReport also features the picture under the heading: Fire in Highlands of Scotland, the report remains on the website.

Is this democracy? People have freedom in what they write, but without controls set on what they write disorder ensues. This could potentially lead to dangerous outcomes. There is no real danger in the Elk hoax, however, if someone decided to publish a photo of their next door neighbour claiming he was a paedophile with no grounds of truth, it could be very harmful. Is this, by definition, a negative outcome of the anarchical state of the Internet?

By contrast, sites like the BBC’s ‘Have Your Say’ website do exercise a type of democracy. ‘Have Your Say’ allows users to express their opinions on news and current affairs while retaining editorial control. This replicates a democratic society such as our own where our voices can be heard within the law. As long as their editorial control is fair and objective, this is democracy.

UGC content has great potential to empower those who would not necessarily be able to get their view across, but we must be careful to ensure that this power is not abused.

IMAGES - "Anarchy" courtesy of Andrew Edmark taken from flickr.com, "CNN's iReport" courtesy of Ilikerall taken from flickr.com.

We are all Journalists now.

The internet has re-defined journalism. No longer do you have to spend a lifetime working your way through the ranks of a media outlet’s hierarchy to get your opinion or news into the public domain. Just set up a blog.

It sounds easy. In some respects it is, it took me around ten minutes to set up my blog, most of that time was spent deciding what to call it. I went outside the box: Chris Hedley’s Blog.

It is one thing creating and writing a blog, but surely the key is getting people to read it. That is the hard part. There are plenty of blogs out there that nobody ever reads; my blog could become a prime example. The blogs that I have come across tend to be written by journalists or are part of a media outlet.

So maybe you still need to work your way up the ranks to get yourself heard as there is no point in shouting for help if nobody is going to hear you. Some examples do exist, however, where working your way up the ranks is not necessary; take The Drudge Report. Matt Drudge was never a journalist but since his breaking of the Monica Lewinsky scandal the Drudge Report, according to ABC News, plays a big role in shaping the media’s political coverage in America. There is hope for us all yet.

So has the internet really re-defined journalism? Simple blogging does not make us journalists. If my friends read my blog, I could have just told them down the pub. If someone I do not know reads my blog, I could have just told them in passing when we were sat on the train. Blogging is just a medium to express your views or tell someone news. There must be a point where is does become journalism, I am just not sure where that point is. Hopefully by the end of the year I will find that answer.

We are not journalists yet, we’re just training.