In print

Despite being a journalist for almost seven years (!) I rarely see my name in print. As such, on the very rare occasions when it happens I can't deny getting a thrill that was one of reasons I was drawn to writing for a living.

So, when I was asked by London's free paper of choice the Metro if I could offer some comment on the success of the iPlayer, I jumped at the chance, although not literally. The fruits of my waffling can be seen below. For those of you that like it online, you can read it here.

Flat Earth News

I have just finished reading Flat Earth News today by Nick Davies, a hugely detailed expose of the way the media and the reporting of news has changed in the last 50 years over time as big business and commercial interests have overtaken the need for quality reporting and truth telling.

It was very interesting to read as a journalist – a news one at that – and touched on many issues I have seen myself: the rise of churnalism, the clearly fabricated story that gets run everywhere becaue it's easy and everyone else is running it, the wealth of PR nonsense that seems to invade the papers every day and so on.

But it also offered a lot more insights into specific newspapers and how they have changed and moved to become stagnant, reactionary rather than investigative, and downright duplicitous in the stories they run.

Davies seems to have save his real anger for the Daily Mail, rightly so, underlining its repeated, seemingly purposeful attempts at destroying people's lives with a lack of clear or any evidence, but instead merely appealing to the whim's and prejudices of its ramshackle readership.

He disguises his contempt well, letting it trickle through behind the sea of facts, stories and quotes the uses to make his points, the whole thing creating a feeling of deep mistrust at any of the stories you'd ever read in the paper, a lesson worth remembering when those always reactionary and scare-mongering headlines are looming up at you from petrol forecourts, WHSmiths and news agents stands.

Brave new worlds

This morning, in the queue to vote, I got caught up in some electoral confusion as the ballot officials managed to get their numbers confused (how do those people get those jobs? any security / criminal checks? Who's in charge of dispensing the boxes? I digress...). As I stood there, watching the three of them recite a list of arbitrary numbers to one another, I said to the chap behind me, "We need that electoral reform, eh?", he nodded, said,"Yeah..." and that was that.

Elections are funny things. This was my second, but the first of much significance. I remember my Dad refusing to tell me who he voted for in the 1997 Labour landslide and I invested a lot of meaning in this, this sacred act of voting meant that even my own Dad wouldn't, or as I viewed it, couldn't, tell me who he had voted for.

Now, everyone bangs on endlessly about why you must vote Labour or Lib Dems, but just not Tories, for all kinds of reasons, in openly public arenas such as Twitter and Facebook. Yet, place people in a box, with a piece of paper and a pen(cil), and all the online posturing goes out the window. I imagine a lot of people may vote very differently from how they act/talk in public, where they are acting in an effort to keep up of appearances with, or an unwillingness to disagree with, the views and ideals their chosen social networks / friendship groups talk about and promote.

The Americans must find out one month sprint election process very odd, when set against their eight month effort which begins with primaries in various states for leadership choices within their own parities, before moving on to the epic cross country traversing they must endure between NY and San Fran.

Imagine, DC (Cameron, not Washington), might have to travel, at most, between say, Plymouth and Newcastle. Barely a stone's throw in the US. Such a small country.

Whatever happens tonight and into tomorrow, there was a definite sense today that, even if only seen through the highly distorted leftist view of Twitter, people realised today was a day that could shape all our lives for the next four or five years time. Especially for those, like me, who will be going through some (potentially) highly transformative years in our lives, as we move out of post student years, and on towards our 30s, and the ideas of mortgages, housing, children, schools, education (x3) and all the other trappings of the endless momentum of time.

L is for...

Lists...

I love a good list me. Franz Listz is my favourite, Listerine is a close second. Dave Lister from Red Dwarf a distant third.

The Telegraph has published a list of 'things Britons are confused by'. The list is utterly bizarre and includes items such as Poker, Donnie Darko, The clocks changing, Why Cheryl Cole is still with Ashley and, personal favourite, Stephen Hawking's theories.

Who are these people? Who is wandering the streets of Briton thinking, "does a straight beat a flush, and why does Donnie Darko have to be killed to save the world? I am so confused by these things."

Are people, sitting around at home on sofas on a Saturday night ready to watch X-Factor, saying, 'Oh that Cheryl, I don't know why she stays with Ashley, she's too good for him...and what does Dr Hawking mean when he says, "Quantum Gravity is based on a process of rapid expansion of neighbouring regions, with similar cosmic properties, to explain this growth spurt which they call inflation". Any ideas Shell? Dave?"

"Don't ask me, I'm wondering about the changing of the clocks, despite it not happening for another few weeks, and then it only involving putting a watch back, or forward, one hour, it's just so mind-bogglingly confusing."

Bad (news)

As this post shows in far more detail the BBC has been spared a front-page mauling in the press today because of Jacko's untimely demise.

Not sure what to make of MJ's death as I've never been the world's biggest fan. Unquestionably talented of course, but I have never really quite got the full blown obessesion with the man. Give me a Dylan or a Springsteen any day of the week.

The future of news (it's ducks)

I've said it before - here - and I'm going to say it again. Perhaps newspapers will survive by printing stories so small and trival they achieve a uniqueness that more traditional news cannot possible hope to offer anymore.

Clearly The Telegraph thinks this could work.

News worthy

The old addage is, 'Dog bites man = no story, man bites dog = story'. Also, as you may know, local newspapers are dying out there, falling standards, fewer readers, smaller advertising revenues and so on. Quality seems to be shrinking too...

Example one: Woman can't find custard in any local shops.

Example two: Dead fish died of exhaustion.

Example three: Chair set on fire.

On one and three the comments from readers go on and on, mostly bemoaning the quality of the story, or making he-lar-ious puns on the stories. Perhaps the future of local news is to report nonsense and hope people's love of puns will run riot on the comments sections below. This would increase page impressions and encourage advertising spend. It's an idea.

Media

Media Monkey: Turning to to the Goody side. Well, says it all really.

Newspaper opinions

This blog started, years ago when on the Cardiff course - where I've just been back (see two posts down) - and here is an interesting article in the Guardian about opinions on newspapers from young people across the globe. When on our course we heard a lot about the future of print - and so it seems do the current lot - and it's still here and still moving into new areas. It is exciting isn't it?

And more twittering

Not that this is my only topic of conversation at the moment, but...

Seems I wasn't the only one who thought the Daily Mail's article on Twitter was a bit poor. This post here tells the story, so just go there and read away.

Twits

The Daily Mail wrote a polemic recently, sorry article, about celebrities using Twitter to inform people about their 'mundane' lives. This doesn't mean they don't have a Twitter though of course - see. And you just know given the chance they'll be using it as the basis for some inane story about a celebrity.

The case for...

Interesting article here on why books will never die out, even with the invention of fancy book readers, that has a lot of similarities with some of the arguments used to claim why newspapers and magazines will never die out. Probably.

Not surprising, but...

Front page of the londonpaper last night:

Page 3: Sienna's dishy lunch date.

Page 8: Russia continue with Georgia attack.

Bullocks

So was it £3,000, £5,000 or £10,000? Someone's got to be right.

Comments and debate

My first Guardian blog was published on Tuesday and it drew quite a response. Probably more comments then this blog has had several times over, despite having been running for almost two years. My second blog went LIVE! today and those who know me in real life will know it is a subject close to my heart.

It’s nice to be writing pieces that people read and react too, even if they don’t agree with you, because it’s pleasing to see subjects you regard as interesting creating debate.

Quote Unquote

I've started reading Andrew Marr's book My Trade: A Short History of British Journalism and there are some great quotes relating to my chosen profession:

'Perhaps the most desirable quality in a journalist is that he should be a good mixer, a sociable soul'
- Teach Yourself Journalism, 1951

'Only a blockhead writes - except for money'
'Round numbers are always false' - both by Sam Johnson

'We learned shorthand - still, in my view, invaluable to anyone in journalism'
- An extract that seemed pertinent after some of the debate on my course this year.

An Unclear View...

Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian, was this weeks (very well attended...) lecturer on the R&R series.

Although he too spoke about the threats to print from online and UGC he did it from more of a perspective of someone at the very top, the front line and who was as in the dark about the future as anyone else.

He was open and honest on both the opportunities this new wave of Web2.0 has created for the media, and the downright annoyance at the loss of the old, top-down and basically all-powerful media world that existed just five or six years ago.

From the dramatic rise of The Huffington Post in the USA, a website with a far higher hit rate than the NY Times website, (and which bizarrely was started on May 9, my birthday, and features a blogger named Dan Worth, my namesake...), to the Independent's re-interpretation of a newspaper as a "viewspaper" it was an interesting look at the changing world of the newspaper. A world on which even Rupert Murdoch has said "I can't predict five years ahead."

He discussed the unique perspectives offered by their "Comment is Free" section and the way the instant responses that can be posted on commentators posts has helped improve the quality of journalism. The instant response has created a fear of being jumped on and criticised by the mass army of readers and bloggers out there who are just waiting for a reason to attack.

The newspaper people shifted uneasily at his frank and discomforting reply to a question about being worried at the decline of newspaper sales with the response of "Yes, yes I would be worried."

On one level it was a fascinating look at the future, or possible lack of, for newspapers and on another it made me glad I'm studying magazine journalism...although it's not all good news for magazines either...