Blair takes on the "beastly" media

Relevance - Freedom of the Press & Broadcast News
Tony Blair made a speech today, reflecting on the state of the media. At one point, he described it as a "feral beast." Obviously this implies that, at times, it is out of control and needs taming. There is loads of stuff on this all over the web, especially on the BBC website. You could look at any number of places to find commmentary on it, including the BBC's political correspondent's (Nick Robinson) blog - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2007/06/feral_media_my.html
If you'd rather listen to a debate about it, go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/drive.shtml and select "Listen Again Tue" for today's programme (this will only be available until Friday or so). Then skip forward to 2:30:30 to get to start of a report on the speech. They interview a prominent Labour MP, Gerald Kaufman, and the editor of the Independent newspaper, Simon Kelner. It's a perfect opportunity to get a sense of two sides to a debate (it gets a bit feisty) and of how politicians feel the urge to control the press - especially when it is unkind to them.
You can also read the whole of Blair's speech at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6744581.stm - he says interesting things about Broadcast News as well.
The more you can refer to speeches like this in your answers the better chance you have of succeeding - it shows that you are truly engaged with the live debates and not just rehashing the notes given out in class.

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.