Links for 03-04-2010

20 Essential Social Media Resources You May Have Missed

Worth a look!

Continue Reading...

What next for the Independent?

After months of speculation it was announced last week that Alexander Lebedev has finally bought the Independent. The big question now is what happens next?

From what I've been reading nobody seems quite sure. This is a newspaper that has barely made a profit since it was founded back in 1986. What can Lebedev do to turn things around?

Could the Independent become a free paper like the Evening Standard? That would be a hugely drastic move, revolutionary even. But I've been thinking to myself. What role and place does the Independent really have?

One thing I wasn't previously aware of, was that the Independent had been starved of resources by its previous owners, so I'm sure that staff at the paper and many of its readers are hoping for some better times.

I like the Independent when I read it, but it's not that often. When its price went up to £1, I decided I wasn't prepared to pay that much for a daily paper. That all changed once the Guardian put its price up £1 as well

One of the problems I've always seen with the Independent is that its core audience is essentially the same as the Guardian. May be there are people who will disagree with this, but I don't see a great difference. The problem is that the Guardian has a bigger (in football terms) bigger fan base!

Secondly the Independent sells very few papers outside of London. If it went free, would more people read it out in the provinces. I'm not sure, again it has a more niche audience

Finally some of it's lead headlines can be what I would describe as a little 'Leftfield' at times. I understand that the Independent has the image of being a little different, it's a 'viewspaper' but I still think that on some days there are certain news stories that have to lead on a set given day.

In regards to the take over Dominic Ponsford wrote in the Press Gazette that we shouldn't expect the status quo from Lebedev and the Independent. He believes there may be some radical changes in store. We shall see.

One of the most interesting things though, that I read about this story; is Lebedev's idea of creating a not for profit organisation which will finance global media projects. He and the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev want their Independent Media Foundation (NIMF) to be the organisation responsible for doing this.

Can a not for profit business model prove successful? I suppose it depends on the number of willing philanthropists out there who have a deep passion and desire to maintain quality journalism.

It's a good paper the Independent, but I'm not yet convinced on what Lebedev can do to turn around its fortunes.

Continue Reading...

PCC censor Spectator blogger Rod Liddle

The Press Complaints Commission censored columnist Rod Liddle today when it ruled that he had breached its accuracy code following comments he made in his Spectator blog that:

"overwhelming majority" of London's violent crime was carried out by young, African-Caribbean men.

I don't want to focus on the rights on wrongs of what he wrote, I'm well familiar with Liddle's opinions on black youth crime, and have commented on this on my other blog.

I do however think that what he said was wrong. The tone and language he used in the article was crass, insensitive and inappropriate for such a topic.

The issue that's been highlighted for me is one of professionalism, and the standards expected between professional journalists who blog and that of their amateur counterparts.

PCC director Stephen Abell said:

There is plenty of room for robust opinions, views and commentary, but statements of fact must still be substantiated

This is something which I think sets the difference between the amateur and professional journalist/blogger.

There are all kinds of opinions expressed and discussed on millions of blogs. Some statements are true others are false, and many can be offensive.

I agree with the statement from the PCC when their report said.

the "significant ruling" showed publications' websites would be held to the same standards as print editions.

Newspapers and magazines which include blogs on their websites should not be exempt from the PCC code, and I think that this is where the difference lies.

Amateur bloggers do not have any professional codes in which they must comply with. I'm sure if Liddle was just a random bloke spouting his opinions on a personal unheard of blog, we'd all be none the wiser as it wouldn't have received any press coverage.

The simple fact is that as a former editor of BBC 4's Today programme and a columnist in the Times and Spectator, Liddle's views carry more weight and clout, and will attract more coverage.

Liddle is entitled to express his opinions, the question isn't about stifling freedom of speech, but as a high profile journalist there should be no reason to abandon basic journalistic principles just because he is writing his views on a blog and not in print.

Continue Reading...

Links for 15-03-2010

Want to come back to MySpace?

Remember when Myspace was the biggest Social networking site on the block? Seems a very long time ago. Faceboook then came along and stole its thunder. Myspace has never truly recovered.

Really interesting article here in the Guardian on Rupert Murdoch's plans to restore MySpace to its former glories



It's a shame because I still like Myspace. I've still got my profile, and it is great for music which is where it's niche is in. In saying all of this I have to admit I rarely visit the site, but I think that's mainly because there are so many other social networking sites competing for our attention. I simply don't have the time to focus on Myspace along with Facebook, my Twitter account, my blog and Linkedin

Continue Reading...

This Year's General Election and New Media

Last week, I took myself down to City University for the Panel Discussion on Social Media, and its likely impact on the forthcoming general election.

It was an interesting debate which you can watch by clicking on the link here which takes you to City University's website.

Following the election of Barack Obama in 2008, many media commentators focused on the President's use of Social Media as a way of raising funds and building national support.

I went to this debate to try and find out whether social media would really be changing the political debate, or whether it was just a load of hype which would fail to challenge the position of traditional media.

So what did we learn? Well Social Media will have an impact on this year's election but not to any great significance and won't overtake old media in the way that the election is experienced.

I think sometimes those of us in the media industry can get a false sense of how important some media tools are. Sometimes it's easy to forget that there are many people who aren't on Social networking sites like Facebook, or Twitter, they don't have their own blogs and don't post comments on other people's blogs.

Clearly the sort of people who will mostly be involved in online politics, are going to be political journalists, bloggers, activists, and those people who really follow politics closely. I have to say I'm not convinced that the election will convert more people into social networking political debates. If it does, the numbers will be small.

Another point that I found really interesting was made by Nick Robinson. He seemed fairly cynical about the impact social media would have, and was quite critical of the sort of comments he receives on his own BBC blog.

He was right when he said that there isn't always a debate or discussion on his blog, more a case of people shouting and arguing their opinions and criticizing other people's points of view. I sometimes think you have to have a certain ego about you to have you own blog or to leave comments. It's obvious that you have something to say, and want the world to know this.

There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but as Robinson seemed to point out, it doesn't always leave much room for people who just want to discuss the issues, or don't have fervent views one way or another, but who are looking for more clarity and explanations on what the issues mean for them.

I've experienced it myself, in that blogging forums can be aggressive and intimidating places, and I think politics only exaggerates this.

Despite all the talk of social media, I think it was generally agreed amongst most of the panel, and the audience which had a final vote that said, traditional media will still have the greater impact on the election.

The biggest reason for this will be the three televised leadership debates. These will quite clearly be the focal point of the election campaign. I do think though that's it's asking a lot for people to watch three 90 minute debates in their entirety.

Social media will come more into play in terms of people's reactions. I'd imagine that the most significant points of the debates will be uploaded on to sites like You Tube, and people will comment and debate the impact and performance of the leaders through the likes of Twitter and Facebook.

Matthew McGregor of Blue State Digital argued that social media is likely to have a greater impact on a local level, focusing on local candidates and local issues. I think he's probably right, but on a national level, traditional media's position of dominance is unlikely to be replaced by social media.

Continue Reading...

BBC wrong to axe 6 Music!

I was disappointed to hear this week that the BBC would be closing its digital radio station 6 Music. I've become a big fan since I started listening to it a few years ago.

Radio stations like 6 Music represent everything that the BBC should be doing, and highlights what the BBC is best at. It feels like the BBC is being bullied into making cutbacks in areas where it's not necessary. I wish sometimes the BBC would take are more belligerent stance against its critics!

Mark Thompson, the BBC's Director General announced its new strategy proposals which will result in the closure of 6 Music and a second digital station the Asian Network.

The BBC will make cutbacks to its website operations, and reduce its spending on TV sports rights, foreign television, and sell off some of its magazines. The savings made will lead to more investment into producing high quality British programmes.

There's nothing wrong with that at all, but the BBC seems to constantly have its back against the wall trying to defend itself against its growing army of critics in the commercial media and the world of politics.

I discovered 6 Music about 18 months ago and after listening to a selection of shows, I thought to myself:

'this is exactly the type of station I've been looking for'

There's a good selection of musical styles, with shows presented by DJs who you know are passionate about their music. It's an extension of what you can also find on Radio 2 and late night Radio 1, but has the freedom to cover some musical areas in more depth.

Only this week I was listening to a documentary series on the classic reggae record label Trojan Records. I can't imagine where I'd be able to listen to a similar show on commercial radio.

Reading the BBC Trust's website, it states six key points in its commitment to its audiences. The main point which caught my attention was this one:

Content: to be a leader not a follower, offering content of the highest quality and of a kind that no-one else is doing.

Well this is 6 Music, and this is why it should stay. At times I get tired of the constant BBC bashing. No matter what it does as a corporation it never seems to satisfy its critics.

I except that the BBC has to be careful in managing how much it takes on as public broadcaster and doesn’t stifle competition, but it shouldn't be caving in to the demands of the likes of Rupert Murdoch and other critics.

Last year Rupert Murdoch's son James Murdoch gave a speech at the James MacTaggart Memorial Lecture at the Edinburgh Television Festival attacking the BBC for its dominance.

The language he uses in his speech you'd think the BBC was an insatiable media monster terrorising the commercial media sector. Speaking out in terms of the BBC's news and journalism content, James Murdoch said:

"Dumping free, state-sponsored news on the market makes it incredibly difficult for journalism to flourish on the internet," ...."We seem to have decided as a society to let independence and plurality wither. To let the BBC throttle the news market and then get bigger to compensate."

The argument for 'clipping the wings' of the BBC is that it has an unfair advantage over commercial media. It has the guaranteed revenue of the TV licence which has helped it expand its media operations, increasingly worrying its commercial rivals. In particular, newspaper and magazine groups.

The biggest problem faced by commercial media is that they're all struggling with declining revenues made worse by the global recession. This is particularly true of news production and journalism. The problem isn't just in the UK but in Europe and America.

There's no doubt that the BBC is in a stronger position to combat the effects of this recession due to its licence fee. What critics don't point out is that Europe and America don't have the equivalent of the BBC, so it's misleading to argue that the BBC is totally responsible for all the difficulties faced by commercial media.

The likes of Rupert Murdoch are looking at charging people for accessing the online content of papers within the News International group such as the Times and the Sun. Murdoch argues that the BBC makes it difficult for commercial media organisations to convince people that they should pay for online content.

Now here's a thought, may be people go to the BBC's website for news or listen to its radio content because the quality and standard is actually quite high. Just because something is free doesn't make it any good. Perhaps it's up to commercial media to improve the quality of its own content and output rather than constantly complaining about the BBC.

Many of the BBC's loudest critics have complained that the cut backs don't go far enough, but their demands are unrealistic, and smacks of trying to reduce the BBC's competitiveness against commercial rivals.

The BBC has the difficult role of having to appeal to mainstream audiences making programmes that the public wants, to justify its public funding. It can't be totally insulated from commercial concerns in the way some people argue.

On the other hand, one of the BBC's greatest strengths is that it can produce programmes where ratings are not the be all and end all and produce stations like 6 Music which appeal to a small but loyal audience.

I think the BBC is an amazing institution, and I actually believe the licence fee is well worth the money. Of course it's not perfect, but its coverage of news, sport, music and TV dramas has been excellent for many years, and I hope it continues.

As for 6 Music, the amount of support that the station has received from fans and other famous music artists suggests that there's still hope out there that the station can be saved.

Continue Reading...

Living Stories!

I stumbled across an article a few weeks ago in reference to Living Stories which is a recent experiment looking at different formats for presenting news coverage online.




Google are responsible for the developement of Living Stories and have worked in collaboration with the American newspapers the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Living Stories provides the service of bringing together the ongoing coverage of a particular news story to one single place, in this case one webpage

You can search for a story and once you've found a particular article you'll immediately be able to see where it fits in within the ongoing narrative of that story. It provides immediate context for the reader.

As well as this, the story is constantly updated with the latest developments, so the reader can keep always be kept updated on how the story is unfolding

I can defintitely see this becoming a highly valuable research tool for journalists, particularly those journalists whose work is conducted mainly online. Something like Living Stories would be brilliant for those people.

The experiment has just finished, running from December 2009 and ending in February 2010. I've not heard any news of the Washington Post or New York Times starting the project up again, so it's a case of watch this space, but I'll be keeping my eyes and ears open and looking to see whether any other publihsers decide to take Living Stories any further.





Continue Reading...

Privileged access for bloggers at Westminster

Earlier this week, House of Commons chiefs made the decision to allow a select group of bloggers privileged access to government communications, meaning that some bloggers will be allowed into the Westminster lobby system, which allows reporting directly from inside parliament.

On first thoughts, it sounded like a really bold and forwarding thinking move, but looking at the criteria that bloggers will be required to meet, far from opening up political reporting, those bloggers who will be accepted will still be part of the political journalism establishment.

Reading about this story in PR Week they explained that the Westminster lobby is where a small group of journalists have the opportunity of privileged access to certain parts of Parliament. But I feel the new proposals only want to expand this small group significantly.

The criteria has stated that the 'bloggers' must be proper journalists, operating for respectable news organisations. Well that's slightly subjective statement!

In addition to this they must have a large number of subscribers and they must use their pass for the purpose of journalism.

I wonder how many bloggers out there who write about politics will actually meet this criteria? It can't be that many!

It's been argued by Commons chiefs that an 'influx of bloggers into the lobby could further undermine the reputation of parliament'.

I don't think there has to be an influx, but it would be interesting to have a group of amateur bloggers 'citizen journalists' who are totally outside the political journalism establishment. Far from undermining the reputation of parliament it would help to make parliament more accessible to ordinary people.

Part of my understanding of blogging is that it's open to anyone. It only takes a matter of minutes to set up a very basic looking blog. It allows the amateur to publish their thoughts and opinions.

Of course many professional journalists have their own blogs, but I just feel that in this case, there is just going to be more professional journalist reporting on parliamentary affairs who just happen to be writing on a blog of some description.

It doesn't really sound like such a drastic new move when you look at it like that. Perhaps they should look in future at being a little more radical and inviting amateur bloggers to report on our political system.

Continue Reading...

Nick Davies - Is the earth still flat?

Last week I was reading an interview in PR Week with the journalist and author Nick Davies.

Davies wrote the controversial book 'Flat Earth News' which came out in 2008 which set out to expose in his words the 'mechanics of falsehood, distortion and propaganda' in the production of news within the media.

I read the book almost immediately after it was first published. I'd just begun my own journalism training, and unsurprisingly thought it was something I really needed to read.

In the book the PR industry takes a bit of a battering from Davies. The industry comes out looking like an enemy of true journalism. He argues that the demand for PR has increased in regards to the production of news.

With more corporate owners, staff cuts, pressure to find and research stories, PR has taken on a much more important role.

The rise in PR has inadvertently reduced journalism to what Davies describes as 'churnalism'. Essentially a less accurate, less informed form of journalism, sometimes based around simply re-writing press releases. If was interesting to see what he had to say about his book and PR in general.

I remember a few years ago when I was thinking of retraining, my choice was between journalism or PR. After reading the book, Davies reminded me why I chose journalism as he makes it sound like the more noble profession of the two. Journalism is about seeking truth, reporting the facts, and exposing wrong doing.

PR on the other hand, has ironically a more negative image. Flat Earth News presents PR as a more unscrupulous, unreliable, version of the truth. In other words spin!

Obviously it's a lot more complex than that. There's always been good and bad journalism and PR clearly has an important role to perform. It occurred to me that he presents the roles of PRs and journalists as being opposite to each other, they're essentially in conflict.

Davies doesn't seem to have any answers to this conflict between journalism and PR, but I suppose he's raising awareness of the issue, reminding us that journalism still involves trying find the true story behind the PR statements and not immediately excepting PR press releases as factual reporting of the issues. PR is still normally produced to create some form of commercial or political gain, for individuals, businesses and organisations.

Reading some of the comments left at the end of the interview, the one comment which I thought was really important was by Graham Goodkind, Founder of Frank PR. He raised the point that the biggest difference between now and when the book first came out was the impact that social media now has.

Social media is now a new source of information for journalists, and although it can still perform a PR function, it's also about sharing information, having discussions and building communities. Companies and brands can't control what's said about them within the world of social media. As Goodkind says it now acts as counterweight to the problems raised in the book.

I suppose in the journalism/PR divide I've always naturally sided more with journalism, but the two professions need each other in order to perform their roles effectively. They just need to remind each other every so often what it is they're meant to be achieving.

Continue Reading...

The London Weekly does exist apparently!

The new London free paper The London Weekly was launched last Friday to a barrage of damning criticism and ridicule!

All of last week I kept reading various rumours on the internet suggesting that perhaps the launch wasn't going to go ahead at all. It was looking increasingly likely that the paper itself might be one big hoax. But no! To everyone's surprise it did make an appearance!
My plan was to pick up a copy for myself on Friday, particularly after I'd been reading various first impressions comments all afternoon on Roy Greenslade's Guardian blog.

To say it received some scathing comments would be an understatement! Truly awful,poorly designed, with spelling errors on the front page! Just some of the critical observations that I read.

On my way home from work I passed through Liverpool Street station expecting to find a copy, but I saw no sign of one at all!

This is what makes it all so baffling to me. Why launch a new free paper which you can't even pick up at one of the biggest train stations in London?

After moving on from Roy Greenslade's blog I also read Gordon MacMillian's blog on the advertising website Brand Republic. He actually had copies in front of him and described the paper as 'shocking'

Today I had a look at the papers website which you can find at www.thelondonweekly.co.uk . Under the headline 'London Weekly Finally Launched Today' the Sports Writer & Co-Founder of Global Publishing Group and the London Weekly, Tony Woodcock commented:

"Anyone who expects perfection for a brand new launch is practically living in a dreamworld. We are very content with the thousands of support we have had from readers who have picked up a copy this morning and this is our main focus to cater for the audience who want to grow with us as we keep improving issue after issue".

I don't think anyone is expecting perfection, but being able to spell peoples names correctly on the front page of your first edition isn't asking too much is it?

When I look at the launch of The London Weekly it makes me think 'either do something properly or don't do it at all!' Admittedly the paper has time to improve but surely they don't have that much time to produce a quality product. But for me it still goes back to the original point I made a few weeks ago. Does London really need another free sheet? If it does, The London Weekly isn't it.

Continue Reading...

The First New Media Election

I found out today that the Media Society is holding an event next month at City University looking at the role of new media in this year's general election.

I've booked my place for the event which is taking place on 2 March 2010. At the start of the year I was thinking about this year's election, and about how this will be the first time that people will be able to follow and report on a general election through social media such as blogs, twitter, and facebook.

I've always been really into politics, but I'm looking forward to this election for a number of reasons. The impact of social media on this election being one of them.
The panel will include BBC political editor Nick Robinson, and is chaired by the BBC's Evan Davis.

You can find out more details of the event here.

Look out for my blog post on this early next month.

Continue Reading...

Charlie Brooker - Newswipe

At the weekend a friend of mine suggested that I watch Newswipe, the BBC4 programme presented by Charlie Brooker. The way my friend described it, it sounded like a satirical review at the news media. I like reading Brooker's columns in the Guardian, so I decided to watch an episode on the BBC's iPlayer.

I have to say this programme is brilliant! Anyone with an interest in how the media produces and reports the news should have a look at this show. I've downloaded a clip from last week's episode which I thought was hilarious!

If you want to know how to produce a standard news item, take a look at this clip. It ticks every box!



After watching this clip it makes you realise just how lazy and formulaic so many news reports really are!

Continue Reading...

Launch of the Apple iPad tablet

Over the last week it's been almost impossible to avoid all the hype that's surrounded the launch of the new Apple iPad.

It can't just be me who's thought this, but who is the iPad actually meant to be for?

"We want to kick off 2010 by introducing a truly magical and revolutionary product," ...."It's so much more intimate than a laptop and so much more capable than a smart phone."

This was said by Apple CEO Steve Jobs following the launch of the iPad. He claimed that it will change the world!

I immediately want to be cynical and say 'will it really' but based on Apple's track record you'd have to be a very brave person to bet on the tablet failing. I don't have that confidence but I still question who will actually buy it! Who's their market?
Clearly the iPad is somewhere between a conventional laptop and that of a smartphone. Everyone agrees with that. Apple's website claims it's the best way to experience the web, but I don't quite see how it's so significantly better then browsing the web on a laptop or desktop.

Secondly It's too big to put in your coat pocket when you're out and about, but for me the biggest issues would be that it doesn't have a keyboard which limits the appeal. When I've already got a laptop and a mobile phone, I don't need something that's essentially in between the two.

Critics have pointed out that it doesn't run a Flash Player which is the biggest program user for viewing movies and animations online, and which is heavily used in advertising.

The most telling point I've come across in the last week, is that for the iPad to really succeed, it will have to provide users with something they can't get anywhere else.

What does intrigue me about the iPad is its affect on the apps economy and on old media. It seems certain that the iPad will launch a new wave of app developers. I was reading an article in the Sunday Times this week by Dominic Rushe who spoke about the Apple apps economy, currently worth £1.5 billion pounds! Apple already dominates the mobile apps economy, so I'm expecting it to clean up with the iPad.

Newspapers and magazines are looking at the iPad as an opportunity to replace declining readerships with a new audience who will subscribe to news applications. For publishers it's all about finding a way of charging for online content, which currently can be accessed on the web for free. The New York Times already as such an application.

But again it makes me think that the content will have to be of high quality or something which can't be found elsewhere, to persuade people to subscribe.

After newspapers and magazines you've also got the ebook market. The iBookstore has now been launched which allows consumers to download electronic books to read. The immediate question that this raises, is will this kill off the traditional physical book market in the same way that downloading music has impacted on the sales of CDs?

As someone who loves books, reading books completely on a tablet device doesn't particularly appeal to me, but maybe this is the future. I do struggle to visualise a time when people will travel to work on a bus or tube only reading from a tablet or Kindle

When the iPad does hit the shops I cetainly won't be rushing out to buy it. Why? Because to be perfectly honest I don't need it, that's not to take anything away from its attributes. What I will be doing is paying a lot of attention to its affect on traditional media as this is where it's most likely to be revolutionary.

Continue Reading...

UK Libel Laws

Over the last couple of months I've been reading an increasing amount of articles on UK Libel Laws. I think the reason that I've been paying more attention to these stories is that I'm currently studying Media Law as part of my NCTJ certificate in journalism. So far I've been looking at defamation law which is supposed to be about striking a balance between protecting the reputation of individuals and businesses, whilst at the same time allowing freedom of speech.

The trouble is, the more reports that I've been reading about UK libel laws the more I'm beginning to realise that freedom of speech is actually being severely compromised. Too many companies and individuals are using the libel laws as a form of censorship which is really worrying.
One good thing that does seem to be happening is that more and more people are now saying that the situation is becoming intolerable, and reforms need to be made. The latest report I read on this matter was by a Mark Lewis in the Solicitors Journal. It's an excellent article which you can read here.

In December last year General Electric Healthcare used the London Libel courts to gag a senior radiologist, Henrik Thomsen when he raised concerns of the potential risks over one of its drugs.

A month before that, I read a report in the Sunday Times about the case of Peter Wilmshurst, a consultant cardiologist who was being sued in Britain for comments he made in America which were reported on an American website.

It's not just scientists who are now speaking out, a number of high profile British comedians have also joined a campaign to overhaul the country's libel laws. The comedian Alexi Sayle fought a libel case last year after writing a book in which an individual working in the comedy business sued for defamation, claiming a character in the book resembled him. Sayle argued he faced financial ruin trying to defend himself. He came out with the brilliant line of:

“It would have been cheaper if I’d just stabbed the f*****,”

The biologist and writer Richard Dawkins was quoted saying scientists are operating in an 'atmosphere of fear' because of the libel laws in this country.

What I do find quite worrying is the number of foreign claimants fighting cases in English courts over alleged defamatory statements made in overseas publications, commonly referred to as 'Libel tourism'

It can't be right when American newspapers are seriously considering removing London editions of their publications in the UK because of the fear and financial risk of libel actions being brought against them.

I've recently heard about the The Libel Reform Campaign, which has launched a petition calling for reform of the libel laws. The campaign has brought together a number of different groups such a English Pen who have produced a report recommending changes. Index on Censorship, Sense about Science and various comedians, journalists, politicians and public figures.

Earlier this month the Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg gave a speech on the subject at the Royal Society in which he argued that the 'draconian and unbalanced' libel laws in this country was contributing to the growth of libel tourism.

A review into the libel laws is currently taking place and should be completed by the end of March. The outcome is certainly something I'll be looking forward to hearing about. The review was ordered by the Justice Secretary Jack Straw. I'll be surprised if the report fails to highlight the major imbalances within the current laws.

It seems clear that too many aspects of the current law are weighted in favour of rich claimants who can afford to bring about libel cases, against individuals who simply do not have the financial resources to defend themselves.

Having listened to the debate from those in favour of reform, it seems that the most pressing changes need to begin with a shift in the burden of proof required to win a case. Moving away from the defendant having to prove the truth of their words, to one where the claimant has to show that what has been written is in fact false.

In addition to this, the costs awarded for damages appear totally disproportionate. Some sort of cap on damages needs to be introduced. Finally the other suggestion that I agree with is the creation of an independent tribunal which can arbitrate cases between defendants and complainants.

Continue Reading...

The London Weekly has arrived!

A couple of days ago in my first post, I mentioned there was going to be a new London freesheet to be launched sometime later this year. Well It's now arrived and it's called the London weekly, you'll be able to pick up your first copy on the 5 February.

The paper's website was actually launched on 20 December last year at thelondonweekly.co.uk, but it must have been a low key affair because I don't remember hearing anything about it. I don't quite understand why the website was launched last year, but yet they've waited for over 6 weeks to launch the paper itself.
I've had a quick look at the website, and it's been updated rather sporadically since December which doesn't make much sense to me, and doesn't give the site a great deal of credibility. Are they just doing a test run, or is it that they can't be bothered to update it properly until the February launch?

The paper's publishers, Global Publishing Group (GPG) have said they intend to distribute 250,000 on Fridays and Saturdays. Some reports I've read have suggested that it will only be distributed during the mornings which is fine on a Friday, but who's going to be around to pick it up on a Saturday?

The paper describes itself on its website as a newspaper which,
"bridges the gap between traditional newspapers, Sunday tabloids and dailies" before going on to say that the paper will be "an entertainment, politics, music, sports and lifestyle newspaper."

This seems like quite an ambitious idea. It's hard not to take the cynical view and ask what will this paper provide that you can't already get with the Evening Standard and previously the London Paper and London Lite?

The Independent reported on 1 December 2009 that it intends to get readers to contribute around 30% of the paper's content and to also post news and videos to its website.

Bringing in 'Citizen journalist' is something I'll definitely be paying attention to. I'm not aware of any other papers that have publicly stated they're looking for readers to contribute such a significant amount of content.

I have to say, It's a really brave move by the publishers GPG, when you consider that two free newspapers covering almost the same topics folded at the end of last year. It's intriguing to know where the publishers and editorial staff get their confidence from. Other people may say it's just plain stupid!

I'm not a huge fan of free newspapers and I don't see that London really needs another free paper; Of course I might be proved wrong, but I'll be surprised if the London Weekly is still around this time next year.

Continue Reading...

2010 - Thoughts on the year ahead

For the first post on my new blog, I thought I'd begin by looking ahead at the forthcoming year. I'm not necessarily looking at making predictions for 2010, but I wanted to focus on areas of the media which are currently of interest to me, and which I'll be paying close attention to as the year progresses.
As a journalism student I naturally have a big interest in the challenges facing the newspaper industry. Living in London, we saw the free evening newspaper landscape change drastically towards the end of last year. Firstly with the demise of the London Paper, which was quickly followed by the London Lite. The London Lite was never going to survive once it was decided the Evening Standard would become a free paper.

I couldn't see what purpose there was in the London Lite continuing to exist when up against a free Evening Standard. On the few occasions that I read the Lite, many of its stories were identical to the Standard's, it wasn't offering anything different.

In saying all of this, it looks as if there's going to be another London free paper launched later this year, so we'll have to see how successful that will prove to be.

I'm yet to be convinced by free newspapers. I can't say I've been overly impressed with the quality of content in the Standard since it dropped its 50p cover price. It now feels more like an in depth evening version of the Metro. I still believe that if you want quality journalism, then you need to pay for it!

It was a significant moment for the industry, when the Standard decided to go free, but I've heard a few rumours that the Independent could become the first national to do the same. I don't normally buy the Independent, but when I do, I've always enjoyed reading it. Again the question that concerns me is whether the quality of its content will decrease if it stops charging?

This year Rupert Murdoch intends to move News International newspapers sites behind a paywall, this is clearly going to become part of a growing trend, with other publishers taking the plunge in experimenting with paywalls in an attempt to generate more profits. The question is will it work?

The Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times already have paywalls, and seem to be profiting from them, but it helps that they're niche publications. At the moment this is where paywalls are more likely to succeed. National newspapers aren't niche publications, so I'm not sure how successful Murdoch's decision will prove to be.

On a local level with regional publishers struggling, it'll be interesting to see whether hyperlocal newsites will continue to grow and fill the void left by local newspapers? A year ago I wasn't even aware of what hyperlocal news was, but I've discovered three really good examples; two in the Midlands with the Bournville blog in Birmingham, and to the north of the city in the town of Lichfield there's the Lichfield blog.

In London I quite like Greenwich.co.uk. I've heard a few commentators suggesting that this year's General Election could provide an ideal opportunity for more hyperlocal start ups to emerge, focussing on the election's impact at a more local level.

I'd suggest checking out the above mentioned sites, as I think they're some of the best examples of hyperlocal news that I've come across.

Talking about this year's General Election, the televised debates between the leaders of the three main political parties will be one of the TV highlights of the year.

Well it will be for those of us into our politics, but even if you're not, it's still a significant event in terms of British TV and politics.

This will also be the year that Social media will have a real impact on how the public experience the election. My interest in Social Media has been growing rapidly over the last 12 months.

I've become a bit of a Social Media junkie in recent years. Starting firstly with Myspace before progressing onto Facebook. Last year, I started 'twittering' on Twitter, and then I joined Linkedin to boost my professional networking.

My thoughts on Social media have changed quite a bit since beginning my journalism training. I'm always hearing about the increasing importance of Social media in journalism, particularly as a marketing and promotional tool for individual journalists. Journalists have to start viewing themselves as individual brands these days, and Social media is becoming a vital tool in doing this.

2009 was the year I started my first blog, as a journalism student I was told I needed to create a significant online presence. I linked my blog to my Facebook profile, which immediately meant that I no longer saw Facebook as just a way of keeping up to date with family and friends. My profile gave me an immediate audience to promote my blog.

But then I was told that I had to get myself onto Twitter to develop the brand futher. I have to be honest and admit I wasn't really interested in Twitter to begin with, I couldn't see the point of it!

Last year I went from Twitter sceptic, to Twitter convert! I've now begun to appreciate its value as a marketing tool and information source for a range of major brands, businesses, and individuals.

Outside the worlds of media, marketing and celebrity culture, I still think that Twitter leaves many people confused over its value, so it still has some work to do. And then you have the burning question of whether Twitter will ever make a profit?

So there's just a few of my thoughts on the forthcoming year, I'm sure I will discuss more of these topics in greater detail as the year unfolds.

Continue Reading...

Hello I'm Rodney, welcome to Media Capital. This is my blog, offering news and comments on the media industry within London, the UK and occasionally the rest of the world.

I’m a trainee journalism student, studying part time for my NCTJ certificate through Cleland Thom’s CTJT distance learning course, details of which can be found at www.ctjt.biz

In May 2009 I passed my NCJT certificates in Public Affairs Local and Central Government, I'm now currently studying for my Media Law exam which I intend to take in May 2010.

My full time career is in medical regulation, but I've now decided to develop a sideline career in freelance writing and journalism. I've been told this is known has having a portfolio career.

I don't have a background of working within any of the media industries. What I do have is a genuine passion for writing and a keen interest in the world of media. The blog is my attempt to develop this interest, and hopefully provide some useful insight and discussion on developments within the industry.

The next few years will be a fascinating time within the media world. Surely the biggest question currently being asked concerns the future of the newspaper industry. Do they have any longterm future? What new business models will emerge? And with the switch to digital, will online paywalls be the answer to declining revenues?

Other areas of great interest include the growth of social media, I'm looking forward to seeing how social media will grow and evolve? These are just some of the many areas which I hope to discuss and focus upon with this blog.

One of the great things about blogging is the sharing of ideas, thoughts, and developing discussions with others. If you feel that you'd like to respond to any of the posts on here then please do so, all comments will be much appreciated.

Rodney



My Contact details

Email:write2rodneyd@hotmail.com

Blogs: www.ablogwithmerodneyd.blogspot.com

Linkedin: www.uk.linkedin.com/in/rodneyd75
Continue Reading...