I was on BBC Radio Jersey a couple weeks ago discussing citizen journalism and, in particular, whether bloggers should be allowed to cover government reviews and inquiries. Here's the audio of the interview as it was aired:
I was on BBC Radio Jersey a couple weeks ago discussing citizen journalism and, in particular, whether bloggers should be allowed to cover government reviews and inquiries. Here's the audio of the interview as it was aired:
02 September 2009 in BBC, blogging, blogging techniques, citizen journalism, internet libel, journalism, law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Last week I spoke at one of the strangest conferences, in one of the most far flung places, I've ever been to - the Eurasian Media Forum in Almaty, Kazakhstan. The conference brings together journalists, business leaders, academics and politicians for two days of discussion ranging from news coverage of global events such as the current economic crisis to the implications of the Obama Presidency on East-West relations.
I went, at least in part, in the hope that by talking about the tools and techniques of blogging and social media, I could encourage delegates to think about being more open, transparent and direct in their dealings with audiences, consumers and, for the politicians in attendance, the populaces they govern. It was my usual sort of presentation but in unusual circumstances because, little did I know as I was speaking, something rather unusual was going on outside the building. Dan Kennedy covered the action outside, and what happened in the subsequent panel which we both participated in, on his blog Media Nation:
"The InterContinental Hotel
in Almaty, Kazakhstan, is about as isolating an experience as you can
imagine. The luxurious surroundings — and the ever-present security
guards — effectively separated the several hundred journalists
attending last week's Eurasian Media Forum from whatever was going on outside.
So
it was something of a surprise when that separation was breached last
Friday afternoon. Between a panel on the global media crisis, which I
moderated, and a panel on blogging, in which I participated, several
people approached us with handouts, warning of proposed laws that would
crack down on Kazakhstan's burgeoning blogosphere. We exchanged
pleasantries, and that seemed to be that.
Then, during the
blogging panel, one of them — an audacious 24-year-old woman named
Yevgeniya Plakhina, wearing a shirt that proclaimed "SHHH!" — got up
and demanded to know why six of her friends had been arrested for
demonstrating against the proposals.
The moderator, Vladimir
Rerikh, a Kazakh journalist, clearly wanted the issue, and Plakhina, to
go away. But Danny Schechter, a well-known American progressive
journalist, spoke up on Plakhina's behalf, and she was able to continue
pressing her case. (Here is Schechter's account.)
The organizer of the conference, Dariga Nazarbayeva, the daughter of
President Nursultan Nazarbayev, could be seen talking on her cell
phone, leaving the hall and returning several times..."
Local campaigners fear that the law in question, explains Matthew Collin [on the Frontline Club blog - a Headshift project] who reports for Al Jazeera from Georgia and was another of the panelists in the blogging session, would "put serious restrictions on internet journalists and bloggers and potentially allow the authorities to block sites on political grounds."
Danny Schechter reports that the arrested protesters were later freed by authorities, quoting an email he received from Plakhina, which read “I really appreciate your help. Thanx. My friends are OK. I guess the authorities were afraid of international scandal, so an advisor to the president took care of letting my friends out..."
Needless to say, the panel discussion didn't exactly go as those of us on it had planned, nor - I suspect - as the organisers had intended. But I'm glad it happened - the protest I mean - and hope that, by being one of the many foreign participants in the conference, just being there helped ensure that the protesters and their colleagues both reach a wider audience with their appeal and remain safe from arrest whilst doing so.
The whole incident reminded me that media freedom is a precious, and all to rare, freedom. And blogging is, I think, an important tool for helping those who are brave enough to fight for it to make themselves heard. It's a long long way from the worlds of media and corporate blogging which I usually inhabit to the scenes I at least partially witnessed in Almaty but I hope that, some day, when they've won their fight for rights, blogging will become as everyday and mundane - and safe - as it is for me and most of you reading this.
29 April 2009 in activism, blogging, citizen journalism, conferences/events, Current Affairs, headshift, journalism, law | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Following a meeting at the Cabinet Office earlier today, a colleague and I spotted the Google Street View car filming in Whitehall.
Google Street View is an extension of the functionality of google maps that lets users see the view they'd get if they were actually walking down a street. Spotting sunbathers, crimes in progress and other goings on within Street View has become a bit of a cult activity.
In the UK there's been a bit of a backlash against Google Street View but, just yesterday, it was given the go-ahead by the Information Commissioner, who had been reviewing the service in light of UK privacy laws and a complaint from Privacy International.
In the US, court papers have been released which, critics say, demonstrate "Google's hypocrisy" after the company claimed that "complete privacy doesn't exist" - quite the opposite to it's normal statements that Google "takes privacy very seriously".
As for the guy in the Google Street View car, I reckon he's been photographed before - he didn't seem to take any notice at all of me standing there snapping away.
01 August 2008 in citizen journalism, law, location based services | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
I've uploaded my brief, scene setting presentation from the Press Gazette's Media Law Conference held today in London:
25 June 2008 in BBC, citizen journalism, conferences/events, internet libel, journalism, law, online community, social software | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
This morning I had the pleasure of interviewing Dominic Sparkes*, Managing Director of Tempero, one of the leading online content and community moderation providers. Other UK based moderation providers include ChatModerators and eModeration Ltd.
In the video, Dom provides insight into a rarely seen side of community moderation - what sorts of issues potential clients are worried about when they approach Tempero, the training provided to moderators, and things that site owners can do to make the lives of moderators easier:
*Disclaimer: Dom and Jasmine Malik, the co-founders of Tempero, were colleagues of mine at Granada (now ITV). I consider them, as well as several of their employees, to be friends. I've also had a professional relationship with Tempero as well as ChatModerators and am friends with several people at eModeration Ltd. It's a small world...
25 June 2008 in conferences/events, Data Protection Act, internet libel, journalism, law, online community, social software | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
On Wednesday (25 June) I'll be at the Press Gazette Media Law conference in London, delivering what will be my last conference presentation as a BBC person before I leave (on Friday) to join Headshift.
I'm going to be speaking about the sort of risks - primarily, in this instance, legal risks - which arise when news and media organisations encourage or host audience discussion, content submissions and community.
You may be surprised: I've come up with at least eleven different legal issues that online community managers and social media providers need to be aware of.
I'm also going to discuss the different between moderation (policing) and hosting (facilitating), both of which, some solicitors believe, actually increase a website publisher's exposure to liability for libel.
I'll get my slides up on slideshare as soon as I've got better bandwidth than I'm currently getting using a nokia n95 as a bluetooth modem whilst on a train in a 3g wilderness somewhere south of Birmingham.
24 June 2008 in BBC, conferences/events, internet libel, journalism, law, newspapers, online community, social software | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Last week a French court ruled that providing a link is enough to make a website responsible for the content linked to, even when that content was created by and exists on a third party website. The ruling could have serious consequences, not just for bloggers and message board users, but for any website that provides links, including news websites, online directories and even search engines such as google. Yahoo News Reports:
A Paris court ruled on Thursday that a user-generated website had violated a film star's privacy by hosting a link to a report about him, in a potentially landmark ruling for the French Internet.
The court ruled that fuzz.fr made an "editorial" decision to link to a story on a gossip news site about French actor Olivier Martinez and his relationship with singer Kylie Minogue -- and was therefore responsible for its content.
The fuzz.fr website -- taken offline following the lawsuit -- allowed users to post links to their favourite stories elsewhere on the web, with the most popular ones automatically displayed at the top spot.
Its creator Eric Dupin was ordered to pay 1,000 euros (1,600 dollars) in damages to Martinez and 1,500 euros in legal costs.
Dupin said the decision was a blow to other user-generated websites.
"It's a black day for French participatory websites, because it opens the door to all kinds of (court) procedures," he said... [more]
10 April 2008 in law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins recently made public documents and relics relating to the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy. The problem, according to the paper, is that the documents are, "...neither cataloged nor indexed, and they are in no apparent order. Given the volume, we haven't been able to review most of the files.
That's why were calling on you. Here's your chance to review
never-seen-before materials related to the JFK assassination."
The existence of the materials, stored in a 6ft x 6ft safe, had been kept secret until now.
The Dallas Morning News has put the documents online and is asking readers to help sift through the content which they say includes "transcripts, personal and official letters,
newspaper clippings, lists of jurors, police reports, rap sheets,
autopsy reports, trial notes, police notebooks, photographs and much
more."
Asking readers to help sift through the massive amount of material released is, of course, a great way to use the audience to help find interesting details that will generate stories. At the moment, it looks like the only way users can do this is to send messages to the paper or post on a discussion board - neither of which really harnesses the full potential of the network. I think the paper is missing a trick by not creating an editorial framework around how people can help with the project. For example, the paper could ask users to use a social bookmarking tool, such as del.icio.us, to bookmark, tag and share. This way they'd be able to more quickly index the documents, making it easier for those with specialist skills or knowledge to get to the documents where their skills can be put to best use. Simply putting the materials online, and asking audiences to help sift through them, is a good first step but so much more could be gained by applying the newspaper's editorial skills to creating a framework for participation.
28 February 2008 in citizen journalism, journalism, law, newspapers, social software | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
One of the bigger stories today in the blogosphere is that Robert Scoble has had his facebook account blocked after running a script to scrape the data out of his account so that he could take it, and one assumes use it, elsewhere. This is likely to kick off a flurry of posts about the ownership of data, with most bloggers framing it as an either/or debate. I think it's actually an opportunity to completely rethink the business model that, at present, requires each side - the user and the provider of the service - to give something valuable if they are to also gain.
Mathew Ingram notes that the most interesting part of this particular story isn't what's happened to Scoble, but whether it is users, or facebook, which owns the social graph that one creates when they join and interact with friends using the service. Ingram writes:
"Who does that data belong to? It might have been collected and organized in the way it has because of Facebook’s tools, and he obviously agreed to the terms of use that he has since broken, but there’s no question that the information itself should belong to Scoble (and the rest of us). So what rights should he have when it comes to removing that data from a site like Facebook? And who gets to decide?"
It's an interesting point indeed. At a recent dinner hosted by Yahoo, I suggested that as users of social networking, photo and video sharing, and other social software based services become aware of the value of their data and the (sometimes scary) ways it's being gathered and used by the companies that supply those services, there's almost certain to be a backlash.
Over the past few years, we've seen the death of the vast majority of subscription based online community and social networking services. That model has been replaced by the provision of consumer facing services which are free to the consumer. The most basic of these use banner ads or product placement to target a whole audience or random members within that audience. That model has evolved into one where the better targeted an advertisement can be made, the more advertisers will pay for the opportunity to gain access to those consumers.
Social networking sites like Facebook can build an incredibly powerful profile of individual users - they know who your friends are, how you know those friends, where you live, who you communicate with, the frequency and patterns of that communication, and more. That data is valuable and, having provided a service for free, facebook, yahoo, google or whoever else is providing the tools and infrastructure is right to think that they should be able to get a return on that investment.
But why not go a step further and make users partners? Google AdSense, Amazon Associates and other similar advertising programmes work because they do exactly that. Every time there advertisement is displayed on a partner website, they get data about who that visitor was and where they came from. The programme also then shares revenue, usually based on click through rates or actual purchases, with the site owners. Make no mistake, just about every blog that makes money, but which is too small to have it's own ad sales team, makes that revenue by displaying Google Ads.
I think now is the right time for Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, Yahoo or some other social media provider to do the same for social networking - let users become partners, help them to willingly increase the value and validity of the data collected about them by giving them a percentage of the revenue that enhanced data generates. The more users voluntarily tell the service, and the more they let their usage behaviour be analysed, the greater their potential take.
So who owns Scoble's Facebook data? The debate is likely to be between those who think Scoble should own his own data whilst those on the other side will argue that, by providing a free service in exchange for data, Facebook and others offering similar services have created the necessary "consideration" aspect of a binding contract and should be allowed to seek for a return on their investment.
But framing the debate as one with two opposing sized misses the real opportunity here - one that benefits consumers, business and advertisers - which is for the answer to the ownership of data question to be both. That is, by giving users control over what data they do and don't allow to be collected about them and how that data is to be used, but encouraging them to provide such data on the grounds that they will then get a percentage of the additional revenue that data generates, social networking sites and users can both benefit from that data. And, so long as that data is used in ways where there is consent in what is gathered, transparency in how it's used, and sharing of it's value, the question of who actually owns it will be much less relevant.
[Note: This is my personal blog. All views expressed in this and other posts here are my own and not those of my employer.]
03 January 2008 in blogging, law, online community, social software | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
The Guardian's Readers' Editor, Siobhain Butterworth, has written an insightful post explaining why, in some circumstances, posts on Comment is Free don't allow comments from readers. Online community managers will also find some sound advice here.
Butterworth writes,
"Last week... another piece on Cif discussed the relationship between the media and the police in the McCann case and in other criminal investigations - but it was closed for comment.
A short note explained that this was for "legal reasons". Some readers felt this was not so much an explanation as a lofty way of saying either "we're not going to tell you why" or "it's too complicated for you to understand".
Most people, including some journalists and many people who comment on blogs, don't fully understand libel and other laws that restrict what they can and can't say online.
Publishers such as the Guardian choose to moderate the online discussions they host which, some solicitors feel, might actually increase rather than decrease their legal responsibility for the comments they allow to appear on their sites. The law, as Mumsnet recently discovered, is far from certain.
Personally, I think it's irresponsible for a website to offer users the ability to comment and discuss on site without at least offering on demand moderation (via "alert a moderator" links) of that content. I know that Butterworth agrees that the Guardian should take some responsibility for protecting it's users by moderating. Sometimes, however, the risk of allowing comment just becomes too high. Butterworth explains:
"At least 20 pieces involving the McCanns have appeared on Cif since Madeleine McCann went missing in May... Hundreds of comments were posted to a few articles in September, after the Portuguese police named the McCanns as formal suspects, with headache-inducing consequences for the moderators. Discussion threads on four pieces were closed, or closed early. The Guardian's talk policy does not allow defamatory postings and the problem was that many of the deleted comments were no more than strong opinions weakly held - they had no basis in fact."
If the defendant in a libel suit can prove that their comment is based upon an opinion honestly held, based upon fact and given without malice, for example a negative book review, then they will usually, although not always, be successful in using this defense. But determining what is and isn't honestly held opinion, what is factually true, and whether a comment has been posted with or without malice is a tricky business. Butterworth says,
"The moderators are not lawyers, or fact-checkers. They cannot give reasons to every user whose comments are deleted, though they try to do so when time permits. To put their task in perspective, on one Friday in September, more than 3,800 comments were posted on the Guardian website. The volume means that the moderators' approach to enforcing the talk policy has to be broad brush. The McCann postings stretched the moderating resources too far, the moderators told me. They were concerned about the number of postings they were deleting and they were aware that people were frustrated. All things considered, a decision was made to close threads down. Roughly 1 in 5 of the postings to one piece were deleted and the decision to stop the discussion there was understandable, but I'm not persuaded that it was justified in the other cases..."
Butterworth goes on to explain that, where difficult subjects are raised by a post, users should be warned in advance that the rules are likely to be strictly enforced and, of this advice is ignored, the discussion can and will be shut down. Anything else - that is, not allowing comments on a post just because people might break the rules of discussion rather than because people have broken them "puts the punishment before the crime."
[Read Siobhain Butterworth's Full Post]
03 October 2007 in blogging, blogging techniques, internet libel, journalism, law, newspapers, online community | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Recent Comments