*Blogging: blagging its way to the top? (feature idea)

Blogging is all the rage. Everyone seems to be doing it. The papers are making their correspondents do it, local papers are getting readers to do it, we on the journalism course all have to do it, but does anyone actually read them?

Blogging, to my mind, is more miss than hit. I know few people who read them. The attention blogging receives is massive though. Is it a case of surfing on a non-existent wave? Is the demand for blogging really out there or is it a case of a lot of hype forcing media to embrace it when in actual fact the demand is not really there?

The direction blogs should take has been argued over both indirectly by the different lecturers and directly between us, but is any form of blog more effective than another?

To answer these questions I would hope to be able to get in contact with some of guest speakers. Richard Burton had very strong opinions on blogging and these could be contrasted with the thoughts of Iain Dale. Sarah Radford could give a local perspective. I would also like to get in contact, if possible, with blogger’s Peter Foster, Nick Robinson and Daniel Finkelstein to get their opinion. I think it would also be interesting to find out from the various online editors of national newspapers how much weight they put on blogs and how successful they are. The Sun for example does not give a lot of attention to their blogs, where as The Times and The Guardian do.

A poll of my own around Cardiff could give a representative stat of the number of people viewing blogs. A section of this poll could form a good vox pop.

Multi-tasking? Erm...no thanks.

Sarah Radford came to visit today - a pioneer of online media (sort of).

Sarah works for The Newbury Weekly News online arm. She is the material representation of everything we have been told over the past few months. She is a multi-media, multi-tasking journalist.

And, if i'm honest, it didn't sound fun. Sarah herself didn't look like she particuarly enjoyed it, she looked more bemused than anything. Her superiors spoke of a news room of Sarahs, where everyone had the skills to multi-task. I seriously doubt whether:

1. this is a reality in technical terms - writing is clearly very different to broadcasting so expecting every person to have a grasp of both is like wanting everyone to be able to run the 100 metres in 14 seconds. Some people just ain't runners, no matter how much training you give them
2. whether they will get enough people to make up this utopian multi-skilled newsroom.Most people on this course have chosen their option because that's what they want to do. Very few want to cross over.Even Sarah seemed to lament the fact she was forced to be broadcaster and hack: "I suppose we are a jack of all trades, master of none" (paraphrased)

So, it would be nice for the editors from a monetary point of view if we could all do everything, but in reality I doubt it's going to happen.

Power to the Users

Pete Clifton looked like he could hurt people – and probably has. As head of BBC News Interactive I imagine this has come in useful.

In his quick-step no-messing style he told us straight that the User was central to how a website should operate - not in a Daniel Meadows “Power to the People” way, but in a “give the people what they want and they will give you what you want” way.

The BBC website will accordingly become a more personalised domain. We will have increased customisation options, links outside the BBC, a pure User Generated Content section called Your BBC News – basically more control.

This will equal success. In a world where so much power has been taken out of our hands due to the Tony Blair Nanny Service, we are desperately searching for ways to assert control over our own lives. The Internet is as good a place to start as any.

Ofcourse, we can only control what they want us to control, only see the content they want to provide, but this doesn’t make the initiative pointless. We will benefit from having a fine-tuned news experience that will allow us to engage quickly and efficiently, which is what the Internet is all about.

Critics will claim it is a publicity stunt – giving us a bread roll and calling it a burger – but this would be unfair. A move towards handing over control of the content to the User might not be revolutionary, but it is by no means insignificant.

Citizen Media - Just a pimped out Chav

Citizen media is just community television dressed in Armani instead of Primark - and nobody watches community televevision unless they've lost the will to live and need a push towards the door.

*Cultivating Citizen Media*

Daniel Meadows spent 45 minutes eulogising like a priest on speed. “Everyone has a story” was his refain. Earnest as he was, he couldn’t convert me.

My problem with his brand of citizen media is summed up by Jeremy Clarke, who wrote in his Spectator "Low Life" column about a film his village had made:

"The solidly pensionable audience was rapt, as only an audience that either knew him personally, or was related to him in some way, could be"

This is the problem with Capture Wales. The creation of the personal relationship that makes us care about what someone is saying, cannot be achieved in just two minutes by a person who does not possess the skills to create such a relationship. As a result, the films were pleasant but unfulfilling.

However, they are not entirely without use. Capture Wales could act as a large field in which seeds of ideas are planted. Professional companies like the BBC could then take a look and see if any strong ideas are worth cultivating. The man whose mother could not touch him due to TB would be one such idea.

For citizen media like Capture Wales to become effective in its own right, to become a real competitor for the wandering viewers eye, citizens would have to be trained in how to become effective story-tellers, film makers, writers, and in how to communicate their story for the wider audience. But then they wouldn't be citizens at all, they would be journalists.

*Blogging - What's the point?*

Richard Burton clattered into the left-leaning idealism of democratised media with the subtlety of a man launching a firework from his backside. No-one cares about your opinion, he revealed.

Richard was responding to the role of Blogging. He sees blogging as a way of offering an insight to a world removed from our own and not the opinion of some nobody - i.e. us.

Peter Foster's blog, he believes, does just this - and I would agree. Nick Robinson’s Blog is also effective in this sense. He gives the reader a peek into Westminster in a way the majority will never be able to. He doesn’t just regurgitate news content, he reveals things like what David Cameron and Tony Blair talked about at the state opening of parliament

The problem is that Foster and Robinson are in the minority. This blog from The Times, for instance, is a waste of webspace. The scope for witty and inisightful comment for a Brit in America is massive, yet Gerard Baker's posts are irregular and obvious.

A well argued, well researched, and well communicated opinion based blog is much more effective than Baker's attempt at insight. Daniel Finkelstein's blog is almost entirely opinion based so does not comply with Burton's remit, but it is an excellent read. Like the "insight" blogs, however, good examples are rare.

The blogosphere, then, seems to be just one big antiques fair. It's mostly tat, but there's some good stuff if you root around long enough.

A sign of comprimise?

So Saddam has, predictably, been sentenced to death by hanging. It was never going to be any other result.

The British reaction to the decision was, however, extremely odd.

Margaret Beckett, foreign secretary, said:

"I welcome that Saddam Hussein and the other defendants have faced justice and have been held to account for their crimes.
Appalling crimes were committed by Saddam Hussein's regime. It is right that those accused of such crimes against the Iraqi people should face Iraqi justice.
Today's verdicts and sentences by the Iraqi Higher Tribunal comes at the end of a trial during which evidence has been offered and challenged in the full glare of media scrutiny."

All very pleasent and proper, I am sure you agree. Except that when you think about it, and when you look at other countries responses, you realise that the statement is flawed. Britain does not have, or support, the death sentence. It seems hypocritical and strange, therefore, that we suddenly seem to be its number one fans.

Perhaps it is to show support for the Iraqi judicial system that is already under such intense international scrutiny? Well, maybe, but others managed to combine support with a re-iteration of their opposition to the death penalty.

For example, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero agreed that Saddam had to account for his actions, but said "Obviously it is a penalty which is not provided for in any legal system in the EU or, of course, in our country."

Likewise, the Irish foreign affairs ministry said "The minister welcomes the end of this long legal process" but qualified it with "Ireland is also opposed to it [the death penalty] being applied as a penalty in this case. "

But no word from Margaret. She is pleased they have faced Iraqi justice, apparently regardless of the fact that Iraqi justice goes against the principles we believe in. Is this symptomatic of a growing trend of comprimising our own principles to accomodate our failure to change Iraq into a mirror of our own society? We shall have to wait and see...

The wisdom of David Mitchell

It has been recently reported that the police have asked the government to consider banning flag burning on public demonstrations.

There's been a fair bit of outcry and alot of people crying about free speech. For the most sensible argument against the stupidity of such a proposal we turn to David Mitchell who said the following on the excellent Mock The Week (i've paraphrased it because i don't have a photographic memory) :

"They seem to be under the illusion when they are setting fire to the union jack that they are burning OUR flag. Well, I'm sorry to dissapoint them, but they went out and brought that flag with their hard earned cash and so in fact they are not burning OUR flag, they are burning THEIR flag"

Nuff said.

The wonderful world of Cameron

The speaker of the commons, Michael Martin, has banned David "I'm cooler than a Siberian winter" Cameron from asking Tony Blair who he wanted to be the next Labour leader during Prime Ministers Question Time.

Mr Martin said the debate over who was going to lead the labour party after Blair was not a matter for the House. Cameron was pretty annoyed by all accounts, he nearly stopped smiling, but after consulting a think tank and a media advisor he thought better of it - voters love a smiler see.

Cameron is, instead, going to 'seek clarification' on Martin's ruling. This shows how non-violent and nice he is - he doesn't confront, he clarifies. He is showing how different he is from that war-monger Blair who would bomb the speaker's office with the full force of the American air force (who, incidently, would probably take out half of Coventry and most of Norwich with some hardcore friendly fire) and then make the injured lie on a bed in an NHS hospital corridor for forty-three days - because he can you know, he wouldn't have to ask Cherie or Bush or anyone, he could decide it all on his own.

Maybe Cameron will use his Webcameron posts to make his point. I'm sure his aides can organise a nice little scenario where he is shovelling manure into an eco-bin that turns animal poo into blankets for the homeless. Whilst he tries not to get the overalls his runner has just brought him dirty, he could explain his grievence with the speaker's decision. This would allow him to kill two birds with one stone (figuratively ofcourse, Dave loves all animals and all stones), getting his environmental (only) policy across whilst making his point about the speaker. Also, the press could get some easy headlines out of it.

In all honesty, though, I quite like David Cameron. he seems sincere. Like Blair modelled himself on the most successful PM before him - Thatcher - Cameron is doing the same by imitating Blair.

Cameron is certainly better than the alternatives. The formerly formiddable Blair is in his twilight years, he's done his bit, done it predominantly well, but he's reached the end of his time. Since he announced he was going he has been like the US military - more effective at shooting his own side than shooting down the opposition. His likely successor, Gordon "Has anyone seen my personality" Brown, is a defintie no-go. He has less appeal than a christmas break in Baghdad. The man is just plain unelectable...hopefully. If he gets in I swear I will lose faith in the population forever and start calling myself a Frenchman (although not speaking French may prove a problem). The other contenders, Bulldog Reid and the like, are small fry really, i doubt they will get the top job just yet.

So there really is only Cameron and we could do worse. We could have Berlusconi the crook, Putin the spy, Chirac the prat, or Bush the special school escapee. Blair was the master at media manipulation and the like, and he turned out alright, so despite the banter, I wish Cameron the best of luck, and that he will have a few more battles with the speaker, but from the position of Prime Minister.