Blog - About - Tweet

  • Archives

    • The pros and cons of twitter for journalists, and being locked in a farmhouse.

    August 4, 2010

    There’s a great piece over at Nieman Reports from a set of French radio journalists who’ve been reporting back on the ultimate twitter-for-newsgathering experiment.

    They were locked in a farmhouse for five days, and had to use social networks as their only source of communication. One rule within that rule: they couldn’t follow any news organisations.

    Turns out the upsides are that one-in-a-million chances become more like quirky ‘six degrees of seperation’ affairs, and the downsides are that even crowdsourcing is no match for the assuming snap-judgments of people who’ve heard a loud bang.

    Read it all here.

    Weekly Link Digest – 1st August 2010

    August 1, 2010

    The five best j-related bits of the web this week:

    Why I’m learning shorthand.

    July 30, 2010

    The book to the right is my self-help guide to writing at super-speed, apparently. I’ve decided to learn shorthand, specifically the (easier to learn, harder to master in terms of speed) Teeline variety. I don’t refute the argument it’s a skill that’s increasingly being undermined by technological advances, but I do think there are circumstances where shorthand is still a valuable skill for a journalist to have. I’m also keen, as ever, to throw myself in guinea-pig-with-a-parachute style and see if it’s something you can successfully teach yourself.

    Why bother though? The lecturers who designed my BJTC-accredited journalism degree didn’t think it was a necessary skill. It was rarely mentioned, never taught. I do still think it has it’s place in a journalist’s playbook though, even in these multimedia times.

    Courts are an example I’ve recently mentioned, upon reading about Heather Brooke’s run in with a judge over audio recording in court. Since I wrote that, it’s made a small splash into campaign-mode, but no matter how much I support the campaign, I can’t help to feel it’s an issue that will struggle to get the backing of those who can actually change things.

    So we’re left to battle on with pen and paper. I remember someone once asked in a lecture (prior to a court reporting assignment) what we should do without the ability to write shorthand. The answer was along the lines of ‘make notes of the key things said accurately, and make friends with one of the freelance or print journalists working the court’. That strikes me as an awfully dependant strategy, and one that leaves you on a sure-fire route to failure as journalists become more thin on the ground.

    As a case in point – Heather did mention on twitter how few reporters were at the hearing she was trying to record.

    On top of that, ‘making notes accurately’ is exactly what shorthand is for isn’t it? Despite the technology we have, we’re still not at a stage where transcribing an interview for the web is as easy as playing it to a computer. I’ve been a geek since I was 13, and I still can’t play a recording back and type it up at a matched speed. Shorthand allows you to get the whole thing in front of you, and type it up from there. Without it, it’s an endless *alt-tab* *play* *alt-tab* *type* *alt-tab* *skip back a bit, play* *repeat*.

    I’m still of the belief that interviews should be transcribed for web articles first, with a full (but edited to make it tidy) interview accompanying if your resources allow. It’s all well and good to pop the audio online, but when I’m perusing the news sites I’m often listening to music. Some people are on computers which would require them to plug in headphones (think libraries, internet cafes). It’s also fantastically relevant data for search engines.

    With all that being said, it’s still a long task to learn it to a point where it becomes useful. Wish me luck, I’ll update you on my progress. If you’d like to join me in learning it, I got the book used off eBay for less than £3, grab it and give me a shout on twitter.

    He speaks! The ‘man from the back of the news reports’ is found.

    July 28, 2010

    Kudos to the London Evening Standard. They did it. They’ve got him to tell his story. Here, you can read an interview with the man from the background of the news reports.

    Here he is, for example, on Channel 4 News:

    Paul Yarrow’s been confusing and bemusing many of us for ages, dipping into the background of live camera shots. Why does he do it? I was hoping it’d be ‘just for fun’, but he has a real cause to fight for. Paul told the Evening Standard:

    “It is a statement about the image conscious media. I am overweight and people like me are treated as unsightly because of the way they look.

    He added: “Here I am. I am sorry I don’t have a suit and that I am not lovely and slim.

    “Being overweight I get ignored. I could have a valid point about something but the microphone is always passed to the person alongside me.

    “The point I am making is that the more you push me aside, the more I’m going to be determined to make my presence known.”

    So now we know.

    Weekly Link Digest – 25th July 2010

    July 25, 2010

    The five most journalistically relevant pieces of the internet this week:

    TV Journalist blogs about Twitter row with celebrity twit. World doesn’t explode.

    July 22, 2010

    I was going to make the title ‘Journalism blogger blogs about TV Journ…’, but that would be spiralling back on myself.

    There’s something really quite nice about the ITV approach to social media. Their correspondents seem to be encouraged to use twitter to cross-promote, give insight and report about the reasons for reporting the way they do. Keir Simmons, their crime correspondent, is a key example. Whether it’s why they broadcast Raoul Moat’s tapes, upholding a news blackout, or in this case… why he had an argument with Lily Allen.

    It would’ve been surprising, even slightly surreal, if I hadn’t seen it unfold in front of my eyes on Twitter last night.

    Basically, Lily Allen ranted to her 2 million followers that she thought Channel 4 News only went after ‘Goldy’ (aka Zac Goldsmith MP) over his election campaign expenses because he’s ‘famously wealthy’. Keir didn’t like her questioning their integrity, and a little row ensued.

    Whilst the majority of the first part of the blog post sounds like clarification as to his ‘neutral’ viewpoint on the investigation itself, the final part of it speaks as a strong statement on the need for investigative journalism:

    It seems to be fashionable to attack journalists and journalism these days. And we should be able to take the criticism and be forced to defend our decisions like anyone else. But it’s worth remembering how crucial to democracy journalism is and that in general journalists’ guiding principles are to tell people what’s happening and to question those in power.

    Indeed for their investigation Channel 4 News worked with the ‘Bureau of Investigative Journalism’, a not for profit organisation that aims to promote the kind of difficult journalism that is under threat in these difficult times.

    Difficult times in which it’s worth remembering the old adage ‘don’t shoot the messenger’ and perhaps adding another, ‘you’ll miss us when we’re gone’.

    Whatever you think of the escapade itself, it’s a good reminder that journalism is worth fighting for.

    The ‘audio recording in court’ debate

    July 20, 2010

    DISCLAIMER: At the moment, taking a tape recorder into a courtroom is illegal in the UK, without the expressed (and very rare) permission of the court. See here for the reason why.

    I’ve been following an interesting set of tweets from Heather Brooke the last couple of days. In them, she’s been questioning the absurdity of being able to take shorthand notes in a courtroom, but not being able to record a full and accurate account of the proceedings using an audio recorder. Heather has also, apparently, been trying to tape-record a case taking place in London this week. The following quotes are directly from her twitter page:

    Today in the information tribunal I made a request to tape record the ‘open’ hearing as part of my campaign to open up courts…

    Why, I asked, does the court allow note-taking but not tape recording which would be more accurate? My notation of case more thorough w/tape

    Judge admits the court wants to ‘control’ how court hearing is seen by the public. So usually only official transcript allowed,costing 1000s

    I won the right to record but have to await a ruling before I can use it. Still, I’ll have an accurate and full account of the proceeding.

    Heading out for day 2 of info tribunal hearing WITH tape recorder. Isn’t it ridiculous that in our tech age this is a big deal?

    Well folks – first thing today judge ruled I could NOT record after all. To do so would be a contempt of court. ‘The court must have control

    Recording ‘fraught w/difficulties’ but just two given: 1)risk of manipulation of record 2) disadvantaging other parties not recording.

    1 is so ludicrous. How is note taking any more sacrosanct than a verbatim acct? In fact the fear is the accuracy of the records.

    2) this conceeds that being without a verbatim acct of proceedings puts one at a disadvantage. so the court’s response isn’t to let us all record but to keep us all ignorant. Unless we are rich enough to buy a transcript at £1000 a day.

    Final injustice. Me: ‘can I have a copy of the ruling?’ Judge: ‘no it is not written down.’

    Whatever you think of that, it certainly throws up some interesting questions. With regards to the judge’s response, Heather’s reaction says most of what I’m thinking. On top of that, is it up to the court to make sure everyone reporting in court is on a level playing field? Even in these hard-pressed economic times, I’m sure a court reporter can afford to drop £20 on a dictaphone.

    Considering the first point, Section 9, subsection 4 of the Contempt of Court Act actually nullifies the ban on tape recorders when used for making official court transcripts. So that would lead us to believe that the concern is not over the technology (why would it be?), but over rogue journalists manipulating the recording to mislead the public – and therefore jeopardizing a fair trial.

    The effect of knowingly being recorded is another issue that would have to be considered before the ban could be lifted. If people know what they’re saying is likely to be broadcast to the world, or even just their community, they could be in a different mindset when taking to the stand. We all know how people can clam up when there’s a microphone around – and hence it could be argued witnesses are more likely to withhold information.

    Any move to allow recording is likely to allow cameras in as well – and then further questions will be raised on how the recordings can be used, and whether it poses any risks around identifying victims and/or witnesses.

    In this case though, to be fair to the judge presiding, she was simply upholding a law that has been around since 1981.

    With all that being said, Heather’s certainly put forward a strong argument as to why a rethink should be considered, if only for better transparency of proceedings.

    Weekly Link Digest – 18th July 2010

    July 18, 2010

    The 5 best journalism related bits of the web this week:

    Goldsmith and Snow clash on C4News over right to reply. Implications?

    July 16, 2010

    Channel 4 News welcomed the subject of their latest political exclusive into their studio this evening. The outcome was 6 minutes of remarkable bickering between two grown men about who asked who about appearing on the programme, why Cathy Newman wasn’t available and something about statements that got talked over a lot. I’ll get to that bit in a minute.

    After the ‘right to reply’ row we managed to see roughly 5 and a half minutes of actual question and answer on the topic at hand. Watch the entire thing here, courtesy of Channel 4 News:

    It’s fair to say Mr Goldsmith was deliberately being a rather difficult interviewee, clearly speaking over questions and with a set of messages to get across. Jon Snow handled it in a creditably authoritative, if understandably frustrated, manner.

    As journalists, we should probably hope that this isn’t the first strike for a new PR-lead technique for question avoidance. To his credit, Mr Goldsmith did eventually put forward his case on the two questions Channel 4 News wanted to ask him – but in arguing his side of the ‘backstage’ story he used up enough of their time for an entire live slot on the iPhone 4 announcement to be cut.

    Among the bickering is a quote from Mr Goldsmith that rings out above all others as a sign of journalists needing to make sure they deal ethically with a right to reply:

    You asked for a written response, which I did not give you precisely because I didn’t believe a lengthy response from me would be honestly used by your editors. In the same way that I would not give a pre-recorded interview.

    It’s the same tactic used by Ryanair chief Michael O’Leary to make life difficult for the BBC’s Panorama, and it suggests people are becoming increasingly concerned about their side of the story being censored, or skipped over, in the editing process.

    The people on the receiving end of our stories are now wiser to the techniques we use, and their perceived effects. That’s often thanks to the journalistic experience of many modern PRs, who also know what ‘makes or breaks’ a story, and the weaknesses of a time constrained live broadcast format.

    To put it simply, Journalists are being kept on their toes. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem to have gone down very well.

    Would you really ‘like to be 20 and starting out again right now’, Andrew?

    July 15, 2010

    Alright, I’m not 20, but I’m off by a mere four years. However, as a one-and-a-half-year full timer, I do still consider myself to be ‘starting out’ in this industry*. So I have a little to add to the discussion that surrounds this quote being passed around from this piece by Andrew Marr:

    The kit now being sold is truly liberating. Just a few years ago, I was shaking my head and saying I thought I’d had the best of times for journalism, and wouldn’t want my children to join the trade. No longer. I’d like to be 20 and starting out again right now. Only – not the piercings.

    This is a comment that’s understandable on face value, but naive in it’s seeming assumption that ‘starting out’ is the same now as it was then. Unfortunately, it’s the exact technology that Mr. Marr’s celebrating that’s causing the task of ‘starting out’ in journalism to be more difficult. The internet (and it’s collection of hardware partners) means much more information can be gathered by fewer people – and because news is a business, it’s being taken advantage of. That hampers a journalist’s ability to use the kit and explore it’s full potential.

    I’d suggest that statement is better phrased as ‘I’d like to be 28 and getting my first big break right now’, into an environment where you’re not plugging away endlessly to fill a quota in an understaffed newsroom.

    On the plus side, where news is invested in, these tools are making for one of the most exciting times for journalism. Whether you’re brave enough to invest in your journalism by going it alone as a freelance, or you’re lucky enough to have earned a spot in a well resourced newsroom, the possibilities are endless in how you can follow, treat, display and share your stories with the world.

    * If that left you thinking ‘why the blog about how to do journalism then?’, read about it here.