« October 2007 | Main | December 2007 »
I went to hear Bill Keller, Executive Editor of the New York Times, give the annual Hugo Young lecture organised by The Guardian at Chatham House.
It was an analysis of the problems facing US newspapers, but ultimately optimistic about the future of serious journalism. He described the tone of public debate in the US as "nasty and divisive - nasty by design" describing polarisation as having been Karl Rove's specialty. Not helped, he said, by TV Shout Shows.
Newspapers were closing bureau and hollowing out reporting staff under the commercial pressures brought on them by the internet. But he was optimistic, he said, because of basic market principles: supply of what they produce (journalism) was diminishing while demand "has never been greater".
During questions I pushed him on this asking for evidence of growing demand for serious journalism. He cited Obama - "the audacity of hope" and pointed to NYTimes.Com's 17 million unique users. (Half from search, half direct). Accepting they weren't yet contributing to the costs of serious journalism he said pure print circulation figures (usually in decline) were not a proper indication of public interest in their content. But he offered no new business model.
He did however set out the difference between NYT journalism and bloggers, dismissing the utopianism of the "wisdom of crowds" model espoused by his "friend Jeff Jarvis".
With barriers to entry gone, business success would now belong to those who "moved up the value chain"
Professional news organisations had two major advantages over bloggers or social media.
Firstly, they could afford proper newsgathering, sending reporters around the world to find things out that would otherwise not be known. It took money and courage given the dangers facing reporters today. He decried those organisations which slashed bureau and foreign reporting. At the time of Saddam's fall there were 1000 foreign reporters in Iraq. Now there are about 50, he said.
Secondly, They had standards and accountability. His standards included the primacy of verification over assertion; the responsibility to correct errors when wrong - essential to credibility; transparency and clear attribution and the importance of explaining why anonymous sources were anonymous and the efforts made to verify their information. "Show our working" as his teacher used to urge. And the need to be agnostic as to where a story might lead - ie independence. Like doctors, teachers, lawyers, and judges in their professions, journalists had to set aside their personal views when it came to the news pages. They had to avoid the "hyperventilating advocacy" of blogs and, by implication, some of the Murdoch media.
Describing some of the stand offs against Presidents that the NYT had been through he contrasted a principled stand with the compromises of some internet companies in China and asked who you would prefer to be your window on the world.
He was self effacing, humble, acknowledged the mistakes the NYT had made but set out a confident defence of mainstream media. It could have done with a little more evidence and less assertion - but it was a speech, i'll forgive him. His comments won't meet with the approval or agreement of all, but it was refreshing to hear a major editor moving out of the defensive crouch and into a more confident and optimistic stance.
[Update: Full text of the speech available here. Jeff Jarvis responds here.]
Video of a talk at Reuters where one of their digital journalists talks through their mobile kit.
They're planning to take "MoJo", as they call it, HD too according to Nic Fulton, who outlines their approach on this special blog..
It's the way(CNN) forward(ABC).
(HT Frontline)
Most people would call that a huge invasion of privacy. But social networking site Facebook began doing
The most extraordinary thing about the whole England football farrago this week is to learn that 18 months ago the FA had the opportunity to appoint Martin O'Neill - one of the most inspirational managers in the country - and turned him down for Steve McLaren. And now, of course, they've missed their chance. Sheesh ...
The Association of European Journalists has just published a new survey of barriers to media freedom across the continent.
Headlines:
Media freedom is weak and under threat from growing political and economic pressures in many parts of Europe.The Survey, entitled Goodbye to Freedom? says that restrictive laws, unjustified political interventions, jail, death threats and in some cases even murder have been used to limit or suppress media freedom within Europe.
It is written by journalists in 20 countries of the Council of Europe, the democracy and human rights organisation which requires its members to uphold media freedom and freedom of expression.
The AEJ Survey covers challenges and setbacks for media freedom in the past year across Europe from Russia to Spain. It includes ten long-standing member states of the European Union, six states which joined the EU in the past three years, two aspiring members – Croatia and Turkey – and two states of the former Soviet Union, Russia and Armenia.
The countries included are Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey and the UK.
I've been at the Internet Governance Forum in Rio for the last three days. The IGF was set up by the UN in 2006 to bring together all parties with a stake in the future development and governance of the internet. I'm on the advisory group, representing public broadcasters. There are major sessions on Openness, Access, Diversity and Security as well as many workshops. Bringing together a wide range of stakeholders from the public and private sectors is complicated - but the discussion and process seem to be constructive and this year, most agree, is better than last year's meeting in Athens.
I moderated the session on access. It's a complicated and wide ranging area. Rather than simply look at the supply side (regulation, law, policy, capacity building, encouraging competition) which is the usual approach we tried to look at the demand side. Who are the next billion people to get connected to the internet? How are they different from those already online (eg less wealthy for sure)? What do they need in terms of relevant content? And how is internet access related to economic development? It was a good disussion, with some great examples of new community initiatives in places like Colombia and rural India.
Later I was involved in a workshop looking at Quality of content on the Internet. Two conclusions:
- the media has to improve its game, providing high quality content, acting as a trusted guide, clear editorial values and standards, and show leadership in transparency and acountability.
- Media literacy is crucial. We have to teach from a young age how to understand what you are consuming and a degree of critical thinking. Public Service media in particular can help with this.
(PS it was torrential rain, howling gales, I didnt leave the conference centre and the sun didnt emerge until I got to the airport to return. Jinxed some might call it)
![BBCi: Javascript is not available
on this browser](http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/bsp/hi/services/htmlsyndication/img/synd_js_error_js-inactive.gif")
.
