One thing the internet has truly enabled people to do is to air an opinion to an audience outside of a (formerly) smoky pub.
Online News is full of opinion - blogs, comments, Tweets, Boos etc etc and most of it is welcome despite the BNP's attempt to ruin it for everyone. This is something I welcome as a vital part of the ongoing democratisation of the media.
But forums are where it starts to fall apart for me. Of course I may still suffer from PTSD from my time managing forums for Newsquest Oxfordshire (hence my hatred of the BNP who repeatedly targeted our boards for spamming/trolling sessions).
Have you ever seen a news or sports forum that doesn't descend into name calling? Have you seen one where people share thoughts and consider others' views?
I'm not sure I have. I have, however, witnessed hundreds of ill-informed, soap-box mounted rants which don't seem to do anyone a favour.
Take the issue of refuse collection in Oxford. Councillor Jean Fooks changed from a weekly collection to an alternate recycling and general waste collection. Some people took umbrage at not being able to create as much waste as they liked and mounted an anti-Fooks campaign.
This focused on the issue of rats in the city and how this new scheme had led to a huge increase. Of course, it hadn't and for those reading the small print on the Oxford Mail (local papers love a protest true or not) would have spotted that the increase was due to Severn Trent ceasing to trap the sewers as they had done for decades.
But on an on this raged on the forums. Any time it was pointed out to the anti-Fooks what Severn Trent had admitted they claimed it was a conspiracy. The whole things became pointless as any discussion was ruled out by the swamping effect of the antis.
I used to be a bit of a 606 addict where I would go to 'discuss' rugby. My suspicions about 606 being, well, crap were first aroused during WC2007 when a sizable number of posters repeatedly called for Matthew Tait to be played at fly half. Matthew Tait had never played fly half at schoolboy level but somehow was expected to do so on the world's biggest stage.
But 606 got worse. It's just a place for whingers and wind-up merchants.
Wales are rubbish - everyone hates England - Martin Johnson was a rubbish player - Chris Robshaw is good enough for the All Blacks etc etc
It's just tirade after tirade. I don't think people even read other posts before wading in which kind of makes the whole things pointless.
Recently I have been seeking out forums about the iPhone thinking they would be more upstanding. But even there we seem to have the Montagues (Jobbites) and Capulets (other smartphones) waging verbal war.
I think there is a book in this: The Forum Effect and the Departure from Reason. Mmmmm I think I'll get on to OUP.
Then of course there is a major issue with defamation on forums. It is almost impossible to proactively monitor these sites and you risk libel and contempt of court every day.
With the Government taking a keener interest in online news every day I am sure some form of over-the-top legislation will be brought in to prevent the open-access to these forums. Attempts have already been made to take action against posters and one failure will not put people off
Anyay, as much as I love Twitter and Facebook and the Internet in general, some of the things I discuss will have to remain in the pub where at least people pretend to listen before ripping me to shreds!
My eyes, my eyes
God I love the internet.
I went to an optician recently (Vision Express since you ask) just for a wee check up. That in itself has little to do with the internet.
But they did the full on retinal scan/picture of the inside of my eye thing. Which was interesting in itself but then to top it all off, offered me free copies of the pictures if I went on their website.
Of course I did so I did and here they are for you all to enjoy.
Fascinating no?
I panicked slightly when I saw the white cloud on old lefty but nothing to worry about, it's just similar to a birthmark. Phew.
It's only a little thing but I can't help feel that this has made my life richer somehow.
I spend all my time thinking about how news organisations can best use the internet and then something simple comes along and blows me away.
Don't even get me started on my love affair with my iPhone.
I went to an optician recently (Vision Express since you ask) just for a wee check up. That in itself has little to do with the internet.
But they did the full on retinal scan/picture of the inside of my eye thing. Which was interesting in itself but then to top it all off, offered me free copies of the pictures if I went on their website.
Of course I did so I did and here they are for you all to enjoy.
Fascinating no?I panicked slightly when I saw the white cloud on old lefty but nothing to worry about, it's just similar to a birthmark. Phew.
It's only a little thing but I can't help feel that this has made my life richer somehow.
I spend all my time thinking about how news organisations can best use the internet and then something simple comes along and blows me away.
Don't even get me started on my love affair with my iPhone.
Paywalls and me
So Murdoch is going to charge for the Times and the Sunday Times and now we know how.
Same week we found that out that the Johnston Press experiment had been a spectacular failure - although real figures have not been published.
Of course, it isn't really a surprise that Johnston's experiment failed when you consider the titles they decided to experiment with and the fact that that regional media has already lost so much ground to other (free) outlets such as hyperlocal sites, blogs etc et.
But what about Murdoch's experiment? I think most people expect it to fail and fail in a pretty high-profile way.
But perhaps we first need to define what success would be.
I suspect that Murdoch will not mind losing 90 per cent of his unique users if his profits increase by even just one per cent.
However, to the Guardian it is all about reaching as many people as possible but in 08/09 lost a reported £36.8m and has now had to sell off the Manchester Evening News in a bid to prevent further massive losses to the group.
It's going to be an interesting 12 months - short term I can't see the paywall working because of the number of options we have. And of course, the BBC is, and probably always will be, a free option.
I am glad someone has gone for it though even if has to be Murdoch. There is so much emotion around this - even the term Paywall is highly charged. It's not a term you use for anything else and I have never heard Rusbridger and co demand an end to the news vendor's 'Paywall' as I hand over my £1 for the Guardian.
Longer term, finding a way of getting readers to pay for online news as they have for printed news is a workable way of ensure the industry remains strong and democratic. We might lose a few publications along the way but I the industry is a bit flabby and losing some titles may even help in the long term.
It's a shame that any attempt to discuss the BBC's role in the future of the media and its role in society and democracy is beset with squawks from the left about 'clipping the wings of public service broadcasting' and screams from the right about unfair competition.
The truth is somewhere in between but we need to debate it and debate it like adults at some point rather than sounding like Cameron and Brown on PMQs otherwise I fear for the future of online news.
Questions which need answering:
1) Is the licence fee really paying for online? If so then how so when it is has hardly changed since online and digital tv spread the BBC's resources even more thinly.
2) How much commercial work is the BBC doing abroad and how much is that dictating programme making and web development in the UK?
If the answers are yes and not much then I vote for the BBC to stay as is but I remain a sceptic until these things are proven.
Still, as it happens I don't even read the Times anyway so it won't bother me too much right now but let's see what Lebdev does to the Indie.
Last time I spoke to Simon Kelner he said they were considering introducing an honesty box for online payment. That would be interesting to see in action in the UK but it failed in Miami.
Same week we found that out that the Johnston Press experiment had been a spectacular failure - although real figures have not been published.
Of course, it isn't really a surprise that Johnston's experiment failed when you consider the titles they decided to experiment with and the fact that that regional media has already lost so much ground to other (free) outlets such as hyperlocal sites, blogs etc et.
But what about Murdoch's experiment? I think most people expect it to fail and fail in a pretty high-profile way.
But perhaps we first need to define what success would be.
I suspect that Murdoch will not mind losing 90 per cent of his unique users if his profits increase by even just one per cent.
However, to the Guardian it is all about reaching as many people as possible but in 08/09 lost a reported £36.8m and has now had to sell off the Manchester Evening News in a bid to prevent further massive losses to the group.
It's going to be an interesting 12 months - short term I can't see the paywall working because of the number of options we have. And of course, the BBC is, and probably always will be, a free option.
I am glad someone has gone for it though even if has to be Murdoch. There is so much emotion around this - even the term Paywall is highly charged. It's not a term you use for anything else and I have never heard Rusbridger and co demand an end to the news vendor's 'Paywall' as I hand over my £1 for the Guardian.
Longer term, finding a way of getting readers to pay for online news as they have for printed news is a workable way of ensure the industry remains strong and democratic. We might lose a few publications along the way but I the industry is a bit flabby and losing some titles may even help in the long term.
It's a shame that any attempt to discuss the BBC's role in the future of the media and its role in society and democracy is beset with squawks from the left about 'clipping the wings of public service broadcasting' and screams from the right about unfair competition.
The truth is somewhere in between but we need to debate it and debate it like adults at some point rather than sounding like Cameron and Brown on PMQs otherwise I fear for the future of online news.
Questions which need answering:
1) Is the licence fee really paying for online? If so then how so when it is has hardly changed since online and digital tv spread the BBC's resources even more thinly.
2) How much commercial work is the BBC doing abroad and how much is that dictating programme making and web development in the UK?
If the answers are yes and not much then I vote for the BBC to stay as is but I remain a sceptic until these things are proven.
Still, as it happens I don't even read the Times anyway so it won't bother me too much right now but let's see what Lebdev does to the Indie.
Last time I spoke to Simon Kelner he said they were considering introducing an honesty box for online payment. That would be interesting to see in action in the UK but it failed in Miami.
Dan and Dan on The Daily Mail
Thanks Dan and Dan.
Of course it makes me feel even worse for working for the Daily Mail in the 90s but still worth it.
Of course it makes me feel even worse for working for the Daily Mail in the 90s but still worth it.
Estate agents
Ok, so people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and I have made my share of mistakes in my time as a journo.
But this example from an estate agent flogging a house in Oxfordshire just cracked me up. And to think these 'professionals' take a pretty sizable fee for this kind of toot (thanks Alan).
But this example from an estate agent flogging a house in Oxfordshire just cracked me up. And to think these 'professionals' take a pretty sizable fee for this kind of toot (thanks Alan).
Hull Daily Mail and Smeargate
Sorry for the use of ....gate in the title - it's the lazy sub in me!
Fascinated to read about the Hull Daily Mail's unique tactic for fighting back against hyperlocal rival www.hu17.net - to smear its creator as a pornographer in chief.
I love the moral outrage in all this and the lazy attitude which typifies regional media these days. Instead of using Northcliffe's enormous resources to take the competition head-on it opts for a Sunday red-top style sting.
I particularly like the repeated mention of the pictures of young people in the town - some of which have been take by web designer Paul Smith!!!! Clearly that's a major issue and we should light torches and carry pitchforks to drive this monster from our town.
Of course, he's doing nothing illegal so maybe we shouldn't. What's that you say? Until recently all regional media knowingly carried adverts from prostitutes? Completely different and unrelated to the matter in hand. Harrumph.
I have some sympathy with the regional media. They (we perhaps - for I was there) were slow to react to the web and constantly five years behind and they battle against unfair competition in the form of the licence-fee supported BBC (as does all media in this country).
But come on. Make an effort. Stop spitting the dummy and get back to creating good content that might encourage people to come to you. Get reporters out of the office, stop relying on press releases and PA and don't forget you are part of a community, not in competition with Heat or NOTW.
The only pleasing aspect has been the way the online community has responded so quickly to put the Mail in its place. Way to go commenters.
Fascinated to read about the Hull Daily Mail's unique tactic for fighting back against hyperlocal rival www.hu17.net - to smear its creator as a pornographer in chief.
I love the moral outrage in all this and the lazy attitude which typifies regional media these days. Instead of using Northcliffe's enormous resources to take the competition head-on it opts for a Sunday red-top style sting.
I particularly like the repeated mention of the pictures of young people in the town - some of which have been take by web designer Paul Smith!!!! Clearly that's a major issue and we should light torches and carry pitchforks to drive this monster from our town.
Of course, he's doing nothing illegal so maybe we shouldn't. What's that you say? Until recently all regional media knowingly carried adverts from prostitutes? Completely different and unrelated to the matter in hand. Harrumph.
I have some sympathy with the regional media. They (we perhaps - for I was there) were slow to react to the web and constantly five years behind and they battle against unfair competition in the form of the licence-fee supported BBC (as does all media in this country).
But come on. Make an effort. Stop spitting the dummy and get back to creating good content that might encourage people to come to you. Get reporters out of the office, stop relying on press releases and PA and don't forget you are part of a community, not in competition with Heat or NOTW.
The only pleasing aspect has been the way the online community has responded so quickly to put the Mail in its place. Way to go commenters.
Football fans and the breakdown of society
Alright so the title is slightly over-the-top but football fans are getting on my nerves.
I used to love football. I was a regular at Pride Park and worked my holidays around major championships that England or, more rarely, Scotland were involved in.
But football fans have ruined it for me. Not all of them, but the snarling, vociforous majority who excuse their shocking behaviour by whimpering 'it's because I'm so passionate'. I'm passionate about plenty of things without turning into a cross between Norman Tebbit and the Kray twins.
And I'm not talking about traditional hooligans here. I'm talking about normal people who turn into Neanderthals when their beloved team in mentioned. People who have nice families, hold down good jobs, are involved in their community and don't hold criminal convictions.
They seem to have seen Green Street,thought 'now that's passion' and hold it aloft as an aspirational standard which their middle-class upbringing will never allow them to achieve.
It's the blinkered view on the world that gets me. Their player commits a foul and it's ok. A foul is committed on their player and you can expect frothing at the mouth and death threats against the ref who failed to spot what they could quite plainly see after 12 different camera angles were played at super slowmo over a period of five minutes.
They must know the truth. Deep down the reality of the situation must flash like a beacon but hypocrisy knows no bounds with football fans.
The truth is that Vidic should have been sent off after five minutes of the Carling Cup final, that Shawcross did not commit a horrific foul and that Wayne Bridge does not deserve to be booed just because his best mate had an affair with his (ex?) partner.
Maybe we in the media are to blame. Certainly some of the responsibility rests with us.
Transferring sport from the back pages to the front has resulted in the minute details being picked over and the elevation of sports stars to A List celebs and cultural prophets.
Muppets like Adrian Durham on Talksport excuse bad behaviour and violence as the understandable result of passion and we attack the perception of failure by managers in the same way we attack politicians.
All I know is that I am glad I have rugby and that so far it hasn't gone so far down the wrong road as wendy ball.
I used to love football. I was a regular at Pride Park and worked my holidays around major championships that England or, more rarely, Scotland were involved in.
But football fans have ruined it for me. Not all of them, but the snarling, vociforous majority who excuse their shocking behaviour by whimpering 'it's because I'm so passionate'. I'm passionate about plenty of things without turning into a cross between Norman Tebbit and the Kray twins.
And I'm not talking about traditional hooligans here. I'm talking about normal people who turn into Neanderthals when their beloved team in mentioned. People who have nice families, hold down good jobs, are involved in their community and don't hold criminal convictions.
They seem to have seen Green Street,thought 'now that's passion' and hold it aloft as an aspirational standard which their middle-class upbringing will never allow them to achieve.
It's the blinkered view on the world that gets me. Their player commits a foul and it's ok. A foul is committed on their player and you can expect frothing at the mouth and death threats against the ref who failed to spot what they could quite plainly see after 12 different camera angles were played at super slowmo over a period of five minutes.
They must know the truth. Deep down the reality of the situation must flash like a beacon but hypocrisy knows no bounds with football fans.
The truth is that Vidic should have been sent off after five minutes of the Carling Cup final, that Shawcross did not commit a horrific foul and that Wayne Bridge does not deserve to be booed just because his best mate had an affair with his (ex?) partner.
Maybe we in the media are to blame. Certainly some of the responsibility rests with us.
Transferring sport from the back pages to the front has resulted in the minute details being picked over and the elevation of sports stars to A List celebs and cultural prophets.
Muppets like Adrian Durham on Talksport excuse bad behaviour and violence as the understandable result of passion and we attack the perception of failure by managers in the same way we attack politicians.
All I know is that I am glad I have rugby and that so far it hasn't gone so far down the wrong road as wendy ball.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)