Daily Mirror Iraqi Abuse Photos

Click on the title to read more about the sacking of the Daily Mirror's editor, Piers Morgan, following to publication of faked photos which alleged to show British soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners. Lots of issues here - should the Mirror have published the pictures in the first place (whether they were fake or not) or should they have refused to publish them on the basis that they would be protecting the national interest by safeguarding British troops in Iraq? Once they knew they were fake, why did Piers Morgan still claim that "we published the truth.....We have revealed a can of worms. If the government chooses to ignore that, it is entirely a matter for them."

YouTube - the right to reply.

Year 12 and 13 - this is worth looking at. Amazing footage of a BBC Panorama reporter loosing his cool with a representative of the Church of Scientology has been posted on YouTube. You can click on the link above to see the clip, together with how it was reported by BBC News 24. This raises the important point of how sites like YouTube offer those who are reported upon the opportunity of a more enhanced reaction to how they are represented in the media. The Church of Scientology filmed the reporter's interview and have now been able to show the world footage which may never have seen the light of day were it not for sights like YouTube. It is likely that the BBC would have edited out the angry reaction of its reporter. Because of such postings, the audience are now able to see much more of the "whole story" than previously, thereby empowering the audience in terms of deciding upon issues. It also diminishes traditional news media outlet's (like the BBC) role as gatekeeper to what we can and cannot see. It will be interesting to see if Panorama now includes this footage in its report (tonight 8.30 on BBC1). Look at the way BBC News 24 presents the story; it seems to try to excuse the behaviour of its reporter by discussing the pressures he was under at the time.

Why Blog?

The University of Essex have published a report examining why people read and write blogs and the nature of the culture of blogging. Its conclusions demonstrate just how habit forming many new media technologies can be. Some of the respondants in the study admitted to being "addicted" to blogging.
There isn't necessarily anything too novel about this. For years critics have accused traditional media like television of being addictive. However, what is new about the nature of the habit of blogging is how it grows. With television, the habitual viewer tends to switch on and passively feed their habit (at least physically, it is harder to assess if they are actively engaging with the content mentally). This study finds that there is a link between the reading and writing of blogs. Reading blogs seems to provide the motivation for writing blogs. It is doubtful that watching TV provides the motivation for the majority of viewers to make television programmes.

Year 13 Press Regulation - Privacy Vs. Public Interest

This is an interview with a judge from the European Court of Human Rights outlining how judgements are reached when deciding on cases where someone feels the press has invaded their privacy. It's even laid out in an accessible questions and answers format - ideal for you poor stressed out things!

Interactive TV - A Swindle?

The most basic form of interactive TV is viewers phoning in to programmes. It's also potentially the most profitable for the TV companies. BBC's Panorama programme has uncovered just how profitable and potentially corrupt this form of interactivity can be.

On the commercial channels, like ITV and Channel 4, callers can often pay up to £1 per call. Their calls are usually handled by an outside telecommunications company - in the case of GMTV this was a company called Opera. Panorama revealed that Opera was choosing winners from the GMTV competition callers before the lines were officially meant to close, meaning that many callers were continuing to call in, thinking they might win, when they actually had no chance of doing so. This is similar to selling raffle tickets and then not putting them into the drum to be drawn out. It's alleged that this could have amounted over £12m pounds being defrauded from viewers who called in. GMTV has apologised for this and claims to have had no knowledge of the alleged fraud.

But why do we have so many of these phone-ins in the first place?

Mark Thompson, director general of the BBC, claims that it's down to audience demand - many viewers like to interact with programming in this way so the BBC provides them with this opportunity. I suspect that in the BBC's case it's as much about competition as audience demand - so many of the commercial channels do it, thereby creating expectation amongst the audience that programmes will include such opportunities.

For commercial channels it's as much linked to a much bigger problem (created by the growth of other new media technologies like DVRs and the internet) - the decrease in advertising revenue. For a channel like ITV, who traditionally made all its money from advertising, the chance to make money from viewers using premium rate numbers to call in is too good to pass up. In fact, they've developed whole new digital channels to benefit from this new revenue stream (way of making money) - the quiz channel, ITV Play. According to Panorama, ITV Play made £8 million in its first year of operation, while the total prize money given out was £20,000.

Year 13 Press Regulation - Is Privacy More Important Than Freedom of Expression?

As promised, click on the title above to go to the Guardian article on the Loreena McKennitt case. She's a folk singer who successfully prevented a (former?) friend from publishing large parts of a book about their relationship, claiming that it invaded her privacy. This sets an important precendent for future cases that might be taken on these grounds. What will it mean for all those "kiss 'n' tell" stories that are the lifeblood of the Sunday tabloids? How might it affect the earning potential of all the WAGs an wannabe WAGs? How will the audience survive without salacious tales of footballers and pop stars misbehaving? More seriously, will this mean that public figures will be able to behave in a very hypocritical manner without ever being held to account for it? Imagine a situation where an evangelical bishop was able to block a story about a homosexual relationship on the basis that it invaded his privacy, while every Sunday he preached about how wrong homosexuality is.

Minority Report Almost a Reality

This one covers both NEW MEDIA (Year 12) and BROADCAST NEWS (Year 13). Before I go on, a reminder to sign up for the Media Guardian online - it's free and only by doing so will you be able to access this story. I know it takes time but it's time well spent.

The 3 mobile network will soon be sending its users personally targetted ads when they choose to watch news and sports updates provided by ITN. Here we're moving away from the idea of niche audiences, let alone mass audiences, and towards the concept of individual audiences. You may have seen Tom Cruise's character in Minority Report being bombarded with ads designed specifically for him. This is a classic example of how new media technologies offer even greater personalisation of media consumption and experiences.

From a news perspective, this carries all sorts of potential consequences. It increases competition for other traditional broadcast news providers like the BBC. However, it also shows that established news providers like ITN are inscreasingly turning to new technologies as a way of reaching audiences, expecially younger audiences (read the article to see the types of stories that may typically be sent to customers' phones. Within this there is also a threat to the role of broadcast news in helping to create informed citizens. News plays an important function in society. By informing the audience about events in our local and global community, the news empowers us to make more informed decisions about how we want to be governed and how we want to relate to other members of our community. If, however, we increasingly receive personally tailored news updates (by choosing the types of stories that are sent to our mobile phones, e-mail or Yahoo / MSN homepage) we will lose touch with the wider range of stories offered through longer news bulletins on traditional news outlets (e.g. 10 o'clock news on BBC 1 or the Channel 4 news), thereby becoming less well armed when it comes to making decisions about who to vote for or even whether it makes any difference to buy fair trade coffee or not. This is also true of those people who increasingly rely on blogs to find out what's happening in the world because they feel mainstream news media is just too, well, mainstream. By relying on blogs, or even newspapers for that matter, that they feel represent their perspective, they are reinforcing that particular perspective and limiting themselves to certain amount of information. Of course, some would argue that they read a range of blogs, which of course would overcome this difficulty. However, there is the issue of time - how many people have the time to devote to properly informing themselves in this way? So, I guess what all this boils down to is a question of whether you think the traditional broadcast news outlets still have a role to play, and if so how important a role?